On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 10:35:22AM +1000, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> It does seem like a good way for the share-alike supporters to champion free
> software while at the same time making sure their 'free' contributions never
> end up in the hands of those evil big business.
I’m probably one of those s
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Nic Roets wrote:
> The paranoid people are all on this list. Perhaps 100 ? Which leave a good
> 49900 who don't really care what the license is. Otherwise we would have
> seen a fork long ago.
Yep, that's me, complete with healthy level of paranoia.
My data is of greater accur
The paranoid people are all on this list. Perhaps 100 ? Which leave a good
49900 who don't really care what the license is. Otherwise we would have
seen a fork long ago.
A few of the normal checks should suffice :
1. The directors should act in the best interest of the community and
disclose any p
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> People will ask "how do you ensure that OSMF doesn't fall into evil
> hands", and you will start to invent boards of directors and boards of
> overseers and whatnot, and all these will have to be chosen by some kind
> of vote; then you'll have to define who may vote. But t
Joseph wrote: "If we go with your proposal, the OSM foundation could
authorise future license changes if we find more problems with our new
license. I like that idea. Unfortunately, it gives the foundation a
lot more work to do."
I assure everyone the license will need to be changed again at some
Its a compromise; a compromise which I think the purists on this list (most
of us) will disagree with.
It does seem like a good way for the share-alike supporters to champion free
software while at the same time making sure their 'free' contributions never
end up in the hands of those evil big bus
>> OK, so either not OSMF (but a group setup for the purpose) or OSMF
>> with better protections for who can be a board member. How about a
>> group made up of interested parties with a minimum amount of data
>> submitted to OSM... :-)
> See, you're starting to walk the path towards non-freedom a
Hi,
Brian Quinion wrote:
> OK, so either not OSMF (but a group setup for the purpose) or OSMF
> with better protections for who can be a board member. How about a
> group made up of interested parties with a minimum amount of data
> submitted to OSM... :-)
See, you're starting to walk the path t
Brian Quinion wrote:
> So my questions is this: would it be possible for the contributors to
> OSM (in addition to releasing the data as CC-By-SA) to also grant a
> license to the OSMF to use the data for ANY purpose?
It would be possible for contributors to, certainly. Whether they would
all wa
At 01:59 PM 9/5/2008, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote:
> > Been reading all the discussions for a while with growing frustration.
> > I find my self mostly agreeing with the CC-By-SA license but I do
> > wish there was a way to easily provide
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote:
> Been reading all the discussions for a while with growing frustration.
> I find my self mostly agreeing with the CC-By-SA license but I do
> wish there was a way to easily provide exceptions to those
> organisations wishing to make g
OK, so either not OSMF (but a group setup for the purpose) or OSMF
with better protections for who can be a board member. How about a
group made up of interested parties with a minimum amount of data
submitted to OSM... :-)
Or is the basic idea flawed as well?
--
Brian
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Brian Quinion <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Been reading all the discussions for a while with growing frustration.
> I find my self mostly agreeing with the CC-By-SA license but I do
> wish there was a way to easily provide exceptions to those
> organisati
13 matches
Mail list logo
