> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sebastian Spaeth
> Sent: 05 October 2008 15:28
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sebastian Spaeth
> Sent: 05 October 2008 15:28
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
Peter Miller wrote:
> Richard: Can I assume that you are in agreement with the 'brief brief' or do
> you want to suggest any changes? We really don't want people to stay silent
> now and then raise issues if we produce a licence that delivers on exactly
> that description.
I like the way CC (used
Peter Miller wrote:
> I do understand that there is now finally energy within the Foundation to
> push this licence though. SteveC has said that he is on the case and that we
> should await further details which will be good to see and I do hope that
> there will soon be more indication on the lis
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
> Sent: 03 October 2008 09:52
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
>
>
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> The main reason I am quiet is that I have been waiting for over a year
> for the switch and I don't want to delay it by starting bickering and
> flaming. The new license is way more appropriate than the old one and
> the sooner we switch the better.
>
> It may be the wron
>> Rest seemed ok for me but then again I didn't see much participation on
>> this list in the past months so maybe everybody's out mapping.
>>
> I agree that participation is low on this list, possibly main of the 191
> subscribers to legal-talk are listening but not posting. The basic message
> t
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Harley
> Sent: 28 September 2008 14:29
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
Peter Miller wrote:
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
>> Rest seemed ok for me but then again I didn't see much participation on
>> this list in the past months so maybe everybody's out mapping.
>>
> I agree that participation is low on
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Peter Miller wrote:
> I agree that participation is low on this list, possibly main of the 191
> subscribers to legal-talk are listening but not posting. The basic message
> to these people is speak up now if you are unhappy. Please don't sit back
> now and then vote against it
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 28 September 2008 09:04
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A very brief brief for our new
> licence
>
> Hi,
>
> > How
11 matches
Mail list logo
