On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:05, James Livingston wrote:
> On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of
>> well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive
>> international project in many languages. I'
On 14 July 2010 14:05, James Livingston wrote:
> > I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the
> > LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members?
>
> Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone involved
> in the project? Actually, I can't even find h
On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of
> well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive
> international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only
> discussion at a set time conven
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
>
> I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
> forked for their relicensing? Or Mozilla? Th
I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it
was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:57, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ęvar Arnfjörš Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
>>> That doesn't just go for th
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
forked for their relicensing? Or Mozilla? They managed to find ways to
achieve relicensing without the massi
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed
> to
> > drag on for another 5 years if necessary.
>
> That's not quite true, and I think you know tha
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Sam Larsen wrote:
> I feel imho that the LWG do represent the vast majority of mappers, care
> about the project, care about all the hard work that we all have put into
> this, have noted all the concerns that have been raised and will not make
> a decision that will cause too
On 14 July 2010 19:25, Andy Allan wrote:
> However, I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Could you put
> some numbers on what would make you feel comfortable? I've tried such
> an exercise myself (and came to the same conclusions as the LWG in the
> end) but that doesn't stop you from havi
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
> I don't see a definition (or an attempt of one, or an order of magnitude
> suggestion) of critical mass in that document (or any of the others). So how
> is this detailed with respect to this point? If anyone can point me to
> something concre
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/7/13 Kai Krueger :
>> If Richard's statement relayed through Frederik of that at least 90% of data
>> is an absolute minimum becomes binding, (which would still leave a huge
>> amount of room for wiggeling, after all 10% of data wo
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to
> drag on for another 5 years if necessary.
>
> All the time that there is uncertaintly about the license it is harming the
> project. Deterring potential c
12 matches
Mail list logo
