Re: [OSM-talk] There Is No Cabal
2009/3/4 Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de: Frederik Ramm schrieb: then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM Foundation. I haven't seen this emerging anywhere. (In fact, the OSM foundation, represented by their board of directors, seems to have been remarkably un-involved as we have heard from 80n who serves on the board.) True. Re-reading the message at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/26.html, the change request is attributed to the Foundation's lawyer, not to the Foundation itself. However, it is described as an effort to simplify some of the licensing issues around being able to use a database to produce a work when using other sources, and not as an accident. But when you read the use cases on the wiki it's quite clear that the lawyer who answered those (when he answered those, whenever that was) believed that SA was in place. Which puts it back into the realms of unintended side-effect and cock-up. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] There Is No Cabal
Richard Fairhurst schrieb: Far, far better that you speak up and post I'm worried about this because..., even in Schwabisch dialect if you like, than you sit there in silence thinking there's this conspiracy to make OSM commercial and I feel left out. After *three days* of analyzing the licence text, people figure out that it doesn't actually require ShareAlike for commercial derived maps, and then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM Foundation. But the people in charge couldn't be bothered to tell us because apparently they're busy discussing Search Engine Optimization. WTF? Because There Is No Cabal. Good, but there is a licensing working group, and it would be helpful to know what they're doing. Are they hearing the concerns about open issues with the license, or has a conference appearance been scheduled for for presenting the new license on March 28th and they'd rather not cancel it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] There Is No Cabal
Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: After *three days* of analyzing the licence text, people figure out that it doesn't actually require ShareAlike for commercial derived maps, I think we're seeing a slight problem with the wording here that has been overlooked, not a problem of the magnitude you describe, and certainly nothing to do with commercial vs. non-commercial. and then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM Foundation. I haven't seen this emerging anywhere. (In fact, the OSM foundation, represented by their board of directors, seems to have been remarkably un-involved as we have heard from 80n who serves on the board.) Assuming you're talking about the issue we raised on odc-discuss, I currently tend to thing it is a cockup rather than a conspiracy. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] There Is No Cabal
Frederik Ramm schrieb: then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM Foundation. I haven't seen this emerging anywhere. (In fact, the OSM foundation, represented by their board of directors, seems to have been remarkably un-involved as we have heard from 80n who serves on the board.) True. Re-reading the message at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/26.html, the change request is attributed to the Foundation's lawyer, not to the Foundation itself. However, it is described as an effort to simplify some of the licensing issues around being able to use a database to produce a work when using other sources, and not as an accident. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
