On 27 Feb 2009, at 12:26, Mike Collinson wrote: > The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the > wiki history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that > review has been made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then > no edits for a month). I've grabbed a copy of that page and will > insert the review comments into that as suggested. Give me till Sat.
Given that the Use Cases will be reviewed again in the consultation phase I think it is fair to take a slight guess at that date the review happened. On consideration, do leave the comments you have added to the page on there. I would like to spend some time seeing if we can keep the version that was consulted on and the legal response on the page in a quoteblock, and then also have the current proposed Use Case wording that can be tweeked. None of that stops it being a good idea to have a read-only pdf of the Use Cases as presented to the lawyers and their comments. Regards, Peter > > > Mike > > At 12:52 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote: > >> On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote: >> >>> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce >>> the >>> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the >>> new >>> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). >>> >> >> Thank you for your work to date; clearly a lot of work has gone into >> this. >> >> We will now pass this information to our own legal people for review. >> We will publish their response to the community as soon as it is >> available. If we have any interim questions we will post those to the >> list as well. >> >> I have a question about how we manage the Use Cases wiki page during >> the consultation phase... The legal people have responded to one set >> of Use Cases (excellent news indeed), however the wiki can be changed >> at any time so the legal view will become out-of-date as the Use Case >> text is updated. >> >> Can I suggest that a separate .pdf document is published which >> contains the Use Case version that was actually consulted on and the >> response from the legal people to that version? I suggest that we >> then >> revert the Use Case wiki page to the version prior to the legal >> comment being added and that we then update the text for the Use >> Cases >> in response to this feedback we have received. >> >> We should then possibly seek a further review of any Use Cases where >> the text has been altered (the WIki 'diff' feature will allow us to >> identify which Use Cases have updated between the date that the legal >> people took their initial version and the current version). >> >> I also suggest that we delete the ' A brief for the proposed SA >> licence ' section of the Use Case page as that is now historical, it >> may not actually reflect the license and is a distraction (note >> that I >> was the main author of it, so no one should be offended by doing >> that!). >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Peter Miller >> ITO World Ltd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
