On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Now I'm asking you about a list of the OSMF members publicly. I'm not an
> OSMF member for the record.
>
> The OSMF is asking for an OSM license change, so I really want to know
> what the persons in question are that want to change the licens
SteveC schrieb:
>> (This is meant as a funny way to say that, when other important
>> business
>> has been resolved, we should perhaps one day clean up the AoA; it is
>> not
>> meant to suggest that there was something wrong with those serving on
>> the OSMF board.)
>
> Well I don't really get
Hi!
Ok, first of all, when I use the term "you" I don't mean you personally,
I mean the OSMF as a group. I have no idea who's in charge of what
there, I just know that none of you has taken care of an information
process and you are currently listening.
SteveC schrieb:
>> But you have actua
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> I think it would be
> extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for
> non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did.
>
> Not always a good idea. If your license has any ambiguities, then a judge
> will go outside your li
> as you said: "comments should explain things that *aren't* in the
> code", not repeat the code (incorrectly) in english. your example of a
> bad comment doesn't answer my question: if you are reading code and
> you do not understand why it is written the way it is, don't you read
> the comments t
2009/3/5 Dave Stubbs :
> 2009/3/5 Russ Nelson :
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>>
>> us trying to read a complex license
>> without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
>> comments.
>>
>> They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detai
2009/3/5 Russ Nelson :
>
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>
> us trying to read a complex license
> without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
> comments.
>
> They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail. Legal
> writing isn't actuall
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>> us trying to read a complex license
>> without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
>> comments.
>
> They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail. L
On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
us trying to read a complex license
without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without
comments.
They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail.
Legal writing isn't actually THAT impenetrable, if you can st
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>> ummm good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the
>> license, what is the problem?
>
> The problem is that you've got an impedance mismatch. If you comment about
> your license, it
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
ummm good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the
license, what is the problem?
The problem is that you've got an impedance mismatch. If you comment
about your license, it can become PART OF your license, which means
that you n
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:19 PM, graham wrote:
>
>> I think it would be
>> extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for
>> non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did.
>
> Not always a good idea. If your license has any a
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 04:57, Andy Allan wrote:
> If you look at the license plan you'll see it comes in the following stages:
>
> 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
> 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
> final version of the ODbL
> 3) See if
On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:19 PM, graham wrote:
I think it would be
extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation
for
non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did.
Not always a good idea. If your license has any ambiguities, then a
judge will go outside your license to se
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I know it's not always easy but we're none of us great at communication,
> we're none of us actually paid to think that carefully about what we write,
> so it's all too easy to get wound up in a http://xkcd.com/386/ kind of way.
> At which point Steve does something betw
Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
> Was a surprised by the announcement. Read the license and mails.
> Would probably have said yes.
>
> But I do not like the way this went on. The fact that those who want
> to change it just say "you do not want to help". That's my free time,
> that's your's.
Seriou
SteveC wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:42, Nop wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> SteveC schrieb:
>>> To me this is similar to "ignorance of the law is no defence". The
>>> data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve
>>> them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help
On 5 Mar 2009, at 03:35, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andy Allan wrote:
>> 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
>> 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
>> final version of the ODbL
>> 3) See if the OSMF board approves
>> 4) See if OSMF members
Great post Dair!
On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:04, Dair Grant wrote:
> Nop wrote:
>
>>> I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000
>>> users
>>> needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who
>>> ever
>>> made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smalle
You too Andy, great post.
On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:57, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM, MP wrote:
>>> Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the
>>> issue
>>> has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea
>>> to send
>>> monthly informa
On Thursday 05 March 2009, SteveC wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote:
> >>> 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most
> >>> people speak English to some degree, but some don't and something
> >>> of this importance and with so much legalese involved does need
> >>> to be
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:14, Nop wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> SteveC schrieb:
>> We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of
>> reasons but it was never with malice.
>
> But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people
> suspect malice - and warn others about that.
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:42, Nop wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> SteveC schrieb:
>> To me this is similar to "ignorance of the law is no defence". The
>> data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve
>> them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all
>> we can when
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote:
>>> 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people
>>> speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this
>>> importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in
>>> your
>>> native language to be sure you unde
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andy Allan wrote:
>>
>> 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
>> 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
>> final version of the ODbL
>> 3) See if the OSMF board approves
>> 4) See if OSM
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
> 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
> 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
> final version of the ODbL
> 3) See if the OSMF board approves
> 4) See if OSMF members like what results
The word "final" should probably be str
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM, MP wrote:
>> Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the issue
>> has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea to send
>> monthly information about the state of things.
>
> Hmm ... perhaps sometimes it would be good to mass-e
Nop wrote:
>> I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users
>> needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever
>> made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for
>> anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier proble
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
> We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of
> reasons but it was never with malice.
But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people
suspect malice - and warn others about that.
I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reactio
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
>> I guess a good strategy would have been:
>>
>> 1. Provide some background information and keep it current
>> - the problems with the current licence
>> - the intention of the new licence
>> - the current state of the process
>> - and later the wording of the licence
>
> Pe
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
> To me this is similar to "ignorance of the law is no defence". The
> data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve
> them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all we
> can when you ask though.
Thank your for bringing it down t
> I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users
> needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever
> made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for
> anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem
Considering t
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:40, MP wrote:
> I personally had no idea about the license change before it got posted
> on this list few days ago and I am contributing to OSM for more than
> year and half...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
Best
Steve
_
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:20, Nop wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
>> Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been
>> recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I
>> joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at.
>> Bu
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:57, Matt Amos wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM, MP wrote:
>>> 3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some
>>> unoffical
>>> votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea
>>> would
>>> have worked.
>>
>> Maybe put up a poll lik
On 4 Mar 2009, at 14:53, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
>>
>> And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was
>> posted.
>
> Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
> underway which you haven't contributed to, not know a
On 4 Mar 2009, at 12:28, Nop wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Russ Nelson schrieb:
>>> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
>>> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY
>>> TRUST
>>> THEM?!?
>>
>> You can't. There is no magic wand to create trust. Only
On 4 Mar 2009, at 12:02, Nop wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
>> El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
>>> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
>>> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY
>>> TRUST
>>> THEM?
On 4 Mar 2009, at 06:49, LeedsTracker wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
>> On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be
>> exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm
>> absolutely
>> sure the ODbL will not address problems in different jurisd
I think others have responded well to most of your rant, if not the
please point it out and I'll respond.
On 3 Mar 2009, at 23:33, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm not sure you're aware, but you're currently on the best way to
> make
> the "license to kill" phrase come true!
>
>
> First of al
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM, MP wrote:
>> 3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some unoffical
>> votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea would
>> have worked.
>
> Maybe put up a poll like:
>
> Do you think OSM should change license for all data from
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>> Basically, you get enough people (and pay for their memberships) in
>> order to
>> buy their votes, in order to eject the current chairman, yadda
>> yadda yadda.
>
> If you're unhappy with the current chairma
> 3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some unoffical
> votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea would
> have worked.
Maybe put up a poll like:
Do you think OSM should change license for all data from cc-by-sa to odbl?
( ) Yes, I agree
( ) Yes, but the
> Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the issue
> has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea to send
> monthly information about the state of things.
Hmm ... perhaps sometimes it would be good to mass-email all members
when it is about changes with pos
Hi!
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
> Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been
> recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I
> joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at.
> But you're right, we didn't plaster a huge ban
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> Basically, you get enough people (and pay for their memberships) in order to
> buy their votes, in order to eject the current chairman, yadda yadda yadda.
If you're unhappy with the current chairman you don't even have to eject
him. Quote from the Articles of As
El Jueves, 5 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au
escribió:
> > > How about the option of contributors transferring their
> > > copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
> > > to release the data under an appropriate license?
> >
> > This is not a good idea be
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
>>
>> And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was posted.
>
> Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
> underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor had any
> e
> > How about the option of contributors transferring their
> > copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
> > to release the data under an appropriate license?
> This is not a good idea because the OSMF can be "bought out" quite easily
by a
> big company.
I don't understand. Bough
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au
escribió:
How about the option of contributors transferring their
copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
to release the data under an appropriate
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au
escribió:
> How about the option of contributors transferring their
> copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
> to release the data under an appropriate license?
This is not a good idea because the OSMF c
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was
posted.
Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor had any
effect on. I guess that given the grow
How about the option of contributors transferring their
copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
to release the data under an appropriate license?
This way, every time that it is necessary to change the
license, it would not be necessary to get explicit
agreement from every single
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Nop wrote:
> Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number of
> people. That is exactly the point. I have been around for 6 months, I am
> subscribed to talk and talk-de and until two weeks ago I was completely
> unaware that there was a plann
> And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it
> was posted.
>
> As were probably more than 50% of the current members. But I
> guess it's
> their own fault if 5 people fail to scan blogs at a
> different site
> for half-year old entries. Not worth a notification or a
>
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
>>
>> Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number of
>> people.
>
> I'm a small fish in the OSM pond, but I managed to notice Steve's
> opengeodata.org posting of last January talking about relicensing:
> http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262
And
On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Nop wrote:
Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number
of
people.
I'm a small fish in the OSM pond, but I managed to notice Steve's
opengeodata.org posting of last January talking about relicensing:
http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
>> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
>> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
>> THEM?!?
>
> You can't. There is no magic wand to create trust. Only through time
> and repeated interaction can you l
Hi!
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
> El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
>> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
>> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
>> THEM?!?
>
> Because they are more knowledgeable in their f
On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:33 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Simply saying "we're the OSMF board and we know what's good for you"
is
a very, very bad idea to build trust!
But that's not what Steve said. Steve is trying to teach you how
lawyers work. I've watched lawyers work, as a fly on the wall. Th
2009/3/4 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
> On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be
> exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm absolutely
> sure the ODbL will not address problems in different jurisdictions just the
> same way the first version of the CC l
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
> THEM?!?
Because they are more knowledgeable in their field than we are.
I do think this is anoth
Hi!
I'm not sure you're aware, but you're currently on the best way to make
the "license to kill" phrase come true!
First of all: If you're not aware, it's all about trust. When I first
uploaded data to OSM, I made sure about the license - so my effort
wasn't only commercially consumed. This
63 matches
Mail list logo
