On 20 July 2011 19:32, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than > the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF?
As I already explained to you off-list when you asked this before: It's because the CTs are a contract between myself and OSMF. What a third party has to say about how they're interpreted carries much less weight than a statement by one of the parties to the contract. If the CTs were an agreement between myself and LWG, then clearly an assurance by LWG would be sufficient. But that's not the case here. LWG may well be "run by the OSMF", but it is a *working group*, and working groups typically don't have delegated authority to act on behalf of / represent that main body. Indeed one of the OSMF board members has recently indicated that it's possible for OSMF to reject any particular stance taken by LWG. If that's the case, then it would suggest that LWG does not have the authority to act on behalf of OSMF. (For what it's worth, I think that's entirely appropriate. Any policy decisions should be passed by the elected OSMF board, even if it's simply a matter of approving LWG's recommendations.) However, maybe this isn't the case, and LWG does have the authority to speak for OSMF in licensing matters. In which case, a statement to that effect would also satisfy my concerns. If the OSMF board expects contributors to agree to the CTs based on an assurance from LWG, then why would it be a problem for them to publicly endorse that assurance? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
