On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Chris Barham <cbar...@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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" > If that were the case then I'm sure that the LWG is capable of making these points themselves. The fact is they haven't given any justification for not disclosing the original text of the statement. Copyright infringement is a serious business. Anyone who is encouraged to copy from some third party source without being able to refer to an authoritative permission is taking big risks. > 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. > Regardless of whether this could happen (and I am sure it wouldn't), it's not a good enough reason to not do the right thing. Clarity and transparency is essential if their efforts are to be trusted. > > 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)? > *Never attribute to malice that which.... *
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
