On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than > "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!).
Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts: a number of people on this list are both vocal and vitriolic regarding OSMF. Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and damage the project. Scenario A: A person could cut and paste the detail along with a whiny cover letter to data.gov.au saying "no fair, me want too" - piggy backing on the work done by licence group for the benefit of OSM, all the while decrying anything OSMF does. Scenario B: Someone could nitpick over detail and then jeopardise the agreement by complaining vociferously to anyone who will listen about how it's illegal because a full stop is misplaced; maybe complaining to individual data owners e.g.: "Look at this, data.gov.au just re-licenced your data" I'm not suggesting it will happen, but it could, especially given the historical (and breathtakingly non-sensical), level of animosity towards OSMF and it's work. Unless I misunderstand it, the licence group volunteer to sort this stuff out, project users can assume they act in good faith and applaud their successes. So why aren't we believing that this is what they have done, under the oversight of the OSMF (who are there to oversee)? Chris _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
