There is, naturally, a longish story before this, not really necessary, drama.
In August last year Kate hat contact with a law school about potential input from a seminar or similar format on topics in the context of licensing. While there was a fair amount of discussion and some suggestions with respect to potential suitable topics, in the end it fizzled out and nothing actually happened. Very early this year (aka before we (LWG and myself) were back from the holiday season) another similar opportunity presented itself and in the rush to secure the contact a number of "DO NOT PRESS, THIS WILL CAUSE CONFLAGRATION" buttons were pressed, including one labelled "geocoding". The resulting blaze was however contained reasonably fast and the position of the LWG remains the same as before, that there is nothing to be said against input in such a form as long as it is clear that we are not seeking formal legal advice with all its associated consequences. Obviously contentious high-profile topics probably are not the best selection for student work and should only be farmed out after due consideration. If anybody wants to be truly bored, this is some of the bullet-point only topics that I've suggested: - review of the existing OSM community guidelines related to the ODbL - ODbL review with an eye to a 1.1 release (gather points for clarification and similar) - review CC-BY 4.0 compatibility as an input licence to the ODbL licensed databases - sub-licensing in the ODbL and CC licences - a treaty on the "can I be sued by an OSM contributor" issue - grace periods in the CC and ODbL licences Naturally OSM-US is completely free to discuss whatever it wants with whomever it wants, but that works the other way around too. Simon Am 22.02.2016 um 10:38 schrieb Simone Cortesi: > Hi, > Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I > wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap > US but some company whose name starts with Map* > > This should be disclosed. > > The Foundation doesn't need a new licence for our data. > > 1+ for Mr. Henk. > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Henk Hoff <henk.h...@osmfoundation.org> > wrote: >> It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for >> this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the >> Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be). >> >> >> >> This discussion should be led on Foundation level. I assume the Board is >> taking action to get this issue resolved. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Henk >> >> >> >> >> >> Van: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr] >> Verzonden: zaterdag 20 februari 2016 15:05 >> Aan: Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> >> CC: <osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org> <osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org>; >> talk@openstreetmap.org Talk <talk@openstreetmap.org>; talk-us >> <talk...@openstreetmap.org> >> Onderwerp: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] license changes >> >> >> >> Again, and again, and again... and each time from the US if I'm not wrong. >> >> >> >> 2016-02-18 23:35 GMT+01:00 Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com>: >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: >>> Any license change process, or anything remotely close to it, should be >>> open and transparent. It should involve the community from the start and any >>> company that wants to participate too. >> I'm aligned with that. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> osmf-talk mailing list >> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
