On 05/03/09 10:56, Dair Grant wrote:
> People have been talking about the licence issue for years (literally; there
> was an hour-long panel about it at SOTM 2007), and we have nothing to show
> for it other than a large number of "I'm not a lawyer, but..." threads.
>
> We know there are issues wit
2009/3/5 graham
>
> No, it's absolutely too fast. It's been discussed for a long time - but
> nearly entirely behind closed doors, with almost nothing concrete to see
> about progress on the legal mailing list (I'm not a subscriber, but have
> kept looking at the archives to check on what's happe
graham wrote:
> Please go with Gervase's suggested timetable instead. And build in some extra
> process for including results of discussion by non-english-speaking countries.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I disagree.
I rather we had an ODbL 1.0 in as short a time as possible, so that we
Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
>> it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
>> completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.
>
>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote:
> > We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
> > than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
> > April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then wel
On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote:
> We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
> than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
> April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
> make like the ODbL has never been seen before a
Martin wrote:
> Perhaps give option to agree to ODbL also to existing accounts
> (though
> do not make it mandatory for now). This could also solve some
> problems
> if people leave the project in the meantime (perhaps because
> they have
> already mapped their area of interest or whatever ...)
I
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
> We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
> than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
> April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
> make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're
2009/3/3 Gervase Markham :
> The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
> it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
> completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.
It may well be too quick. And given the fairly large q
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
> it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
> completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.
We've been talking about t
> We can make sure the existing-people-problem doesn't get worse meantime
> by making people creating new accounts agree to dual licensing under
> CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0.
Perhaps give option to agree to ODbL also to existing accounts (though
do not make it mandatory for now). This could also solve
The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.
I don't advocate the N years that the GPLv3 took, but currently the plan
says:
2nd M
12 matches
Mail list logo
