Very good post Frederick, and a good suggestion. I'm working on getting an "official" OSM mailing list for PD discussions right now.
The Sunburned Surveyor On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Joseph Gentle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Peter Miller > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 1. Let us - the "powers that be" in the project - accept that there are >>> people who want (some of) OSM in the public domain, and let us accept >>> that, where contributors are ok with this, this is a valid concern. Let >>> us not stigmatize this concern and tell them to find their own place to >>> run their own project; let us create an OSM mailing list where, in the >>> future, we investigate the possibility to give OSM contributors the >>> option to dual-license their data, so that - to the extent permissible >>> by licensing - there might be a subset of OSM that is actually PD >>> because the contributors wanted it. Whether or not this turns out to >>> work is a completely different question - I am not saying we should >>> allocate any resources or make any promises, just set up the mailing >>> list and accept that OSM/PD is a topic worth discussing INSIDE our >>> project. >>> >> >> Yes please, but not on the same list as the details of the SA licence are >> being discussed which was my point. >> >>> 2. In return for this "inclusive" act, let us - those that would rather >>> like to see OSM go PD as a whole - hold back this discussion for at >>> least as long as the re-licensing process is finished and OSM is under >>> ODbl/FIL. Let us accept that the ODbL/FIL is a workable compromise and, >>> at any rate, something better than the CC-BY-SA we have now. Let us >>> concentrate forces on how we can make OSM an inclusive platform that, >>> while generally being share-alike licensed, also opens avenues for >>> contributors to dedicate things to be PD and users to extract such data >>> if they want, even if that means that the PD stock will always just be a >>> lesser-quality subset of the whole of OSM. >>> >> >> Yes. >> >>> To end this with a Peter Miller-esque phrase: Does that make sense? >>> >> >> Yup ;) > > Ok I'm good with that. > > Also, excellent summary. > > Whats the timeframe for relicensing OSM to ODbl/FIL? 2 weeks? 1 month? > 3-6 months? 1 year? > > -J > >> Peter >> >>> Bye >>> Frederik > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
