Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jason Cunningham wrote: > Can I also be "sorry for being pedantic" and point out an issue with the > "license". > > The OSMF decided to base themselves in the UK and is > "A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company > Registration Number: 05912761" > > The Articles of Association > [http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association] details the role > / function of the organisation in detail, and offers definitions of words > used. What is clear is that the decision to base themselves in the UK as a > British Company means the 'legal language' of the OSMF is British English. > > Now for the pedantic part > The proposed licence appears to be in American English, but doesn't state > that. > I think it is important that the 'core' or 'main copy' uses the language of > the country in which this company has based themselves, and the same > language as the 'The Articles of Association' > At the very least its 'bad practice' to have your 'Articles of Association' > in one language and your licence in second. > > It's a small issue to have someone suitably qualified read through the > American license and translate it into British 'legalese', but something > that should be done. Suppose you could move the foundation to the USA. > > It would also be worth looking at what Creative Common do, and provide the > licence in several different languages. > See the discussion on porting of the license: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-May/002464.html Please also note that this isn't an OSMF license. The license has obviously been developed with a lot of input from OSM based people and the OSMF, but it is meant to be general purpose open data license. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
2009/12/8 Jason Cunningham > > (I think I support the licence/license change, but I need to read more. > Sadly not a member of the OSMF because of their links with Paypal, a point > of principle for me) > > You might want to take a look that this page... http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Join/International_Bank_Transfer Cheers, Henk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
Can I also be "sorry for being pedantic" and point out an issue with the "license". The OSMF decided to base themselves in the UK and is "A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company Registration Number: 05912761" The Articles of Association [ http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association] details the role / function of the organisation in detail, and offers definitions of words used. What is clear is that the decision to base themselves in the UK as a British Company means the 'legal language' of the OSMF is British English. Now for the pedantic part The proposed licence appears to be in American English, but doesn't state that. I think it is important that the 'core' or 'main copy' uses the language of the country in which this company has based themselves, and the same language as the 'The Articles of Association' At the very least its 'bad practice' to have your 'Articles of Association' in one language and your licence in second. It's a small issue to have someone suitably qualified read through the American license and translate it into British 'legalese', but something that should be done. Suppose you could move the foundation to the USA. It would also be worth looking at what Creative Common do, and provide the licence in several different languages. (I think I support the licence/license change, but I need to read more. Sadly not a member of the OSMF because of their links with Paypal, a point of principle for me) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
- Original Message - From: "Dave Stubbs" To: "David Groom" Cc: "talk openstreetmap.org" Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Groom > wrote: >> Sorry to be pedantic but the wording of the OSMF member vote is: >> >> Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL? >> Yes, I approve. >> No, I do not approve. >> >> Unfortunately this sentence on which we are asked to vote has at least >> two >> meanings >> >> 1) Do you approve of the process? [as in the procedural method used] >> >> 2) Do you approve of the change. >> >> I presume the intention is it to mean (2), but the wording is much closer >> to >> (1). > > > I'm actually fairly sure it means (1) & (2). The LWG have put forward > a proposal of how OSM to move on wrt licensing, it's that proposal > we're voting on. That proposal includes what is to change (CC BY-SA -> > ODbL + Contrib Terms), as well as timetable and mechanism, including > basic wording of the question contributors will be required to agree > to. > >> >> Ironically simply by definition of the poor wording it is unlikely I >> could >> agree to the process, irrespective of my actual views on CC-BY-SA v ODbL. > > They are intimately linked. Saying we want ODbL without how we intend > to get there isn't so useful, and a lot of people wouldn't agree to > changing unless they knew how that change was to be implemented. > What it is about the process you don't want to agree to? That the wording of the vote is ambiguous. You start your response "I'm fairly sure", implying that you don't know for certain what it is you are being asked to vote on. If we are being asked to vote on a issue of such fundamental importance to the future of OSM there should be no room for people saying "I don't know what the vote means" , or, even worse, after the vote saying "I didn't think that was what I was voting for". David > > Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Groom wrote: > Sorry to be pedantic but the wording of the OSMF member vote is: > > Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL? > Yes, I approve. > No, I do not approve. > > Unfortunately this sentence on which we are asked to vote has at least two > meanings > > 1) Do you approve of the process? [as in the procedural method used] > > 2) Do you approve of the change. > > I presume the intention is it to mean (2), but the wording is much closer to > (1). I'm actually fairly sure it means (1) & (2). The LWG have put forward a proposal of how OSM to move on wrt licensing, it's that proposal we're voting on. That proposal includes what is to change (CC BY-SA -> ODbL + Contrib Terms), as well as timetable and mechanism, including basic wording of the question contributors will be required to agree to. > > Ironically simply by definition of the poor wording it is unlikely I could > agree to the process, irrespective of my actual views on CC-BY-SA v ODbL. They are intimately linked. Saying we want ODbL without how we intend to get there isn't so useful, and a lot of people wouldn't agree to changing unless they knew how that change was to be implemented. What it is about the process you don't want to agree to? Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
Sorry to be pedantic but the wording of the OSMF member vote is: Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL? Yes, I approve. No, I do not approve. Unfortunately this sentence on which we are asked to vote has at least two meanings 1) Do you approve of the process? [as in the procedural method used] 2) Do you approve of the change. I presume the intention is it to mean (2), but the wording is much closer to (1). Ironically simply by definition of the poor wording it is unlikely I could agree to the process, irrespective of my actual views on CC-BY-SA v ODbL. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
