Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote: Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed? Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added): I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. *There is a very small amount*, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. There are two major contributions to my feelings on this: The minutes, and Mike Collinson’s very welcome update, where he says: “We are not at this point looking to making any major changes to the way the Contributor Terms, but of course cannot completely rule that out.” Ok, I should have said “little chance” instead of “no chance”, but I hope you will forgive me for feeling weary about it all. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being rolled out. I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned since the early days of the CTs that we ended up with after legal consultation¹. Simon ¹Archive trawling scheduled for Sunday -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. This is a change that cannot be sugar-coated. It is needed in order to ensure that if future changes become necessary they can be made. I'm sorry to be harsh but I think that concentrating on the risks of the new CTs rather than the risks they are meant to address shows a failure of perspective. I don’t think that’s harsh; I think it’s wrong. ;) I see advantages and disadvantages to the CTs, but I believe the disadvantages currently outweigh the advantages. I don't believe that a stoic or pollyannaish acceptance that the licence of OSM may gradually be rendered ineffective by change outside the project is morally superior to enabling the project to rise to future challenges. I’m also not intending that the CTs become something that allows OSM to be gradually rendered ineffective. From my side of this fake wall you have put up, I am indeed intending that they allow OSM to be effective, and continue to allow OSM to be effective, without over extending grants to a third party. If I could make it happen without even having to have a third party involved, I would. Unfortunately, I think it is also beyond possibility. And if people are worried that future changes will not be to their liking they need to get involved in the process more actively. I’m worried that proposed changes in the very near future aren’t to my liking. Am I not actively involved now? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it. Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 That poll is a bit misleading […] Just a point on that poll: I answered ability to accept ODbl imports is more important because: * The assumption was that “the ability to react to change and relicense is more important” requires a very liberal rights grant. I don’t think this is the case. * When discussing a free licence, I would like to see it interoperable with itself, even if OSM only accepted large imports on a case‐by‐case basis. The wording on that poll is also very biased towards the liberal rights grant, and doesn’t paint each option equally (if anything, giving the import option *more* weight). There were only 34 participants. It wasn’t a very good poll. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. These contributor terms define a large part of how the future direction of OSM may be determined. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/03/2010 10:03 AM, Simon Ward wrote: I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. If anyone can suggest a way of combining the ability to change the licence in future with increasingly not being able to do so as more and more contributors become uncontactable I'm sure a compromise can be found. ;-) The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. This is a change that cannot be sugar-coated. It is needed in order to ensure that if future changes become necessary they can be made. I'm sorry to be harsh but I think that concentrating on the risks of the new CTs rather than the risks they are meant to address shows a failure of perspective. I don't believe that a stoic or pollyannaish acceptance that the licence of OSM may gradually be rendered ineffective by change outside the project is morally superior to enabling the project to rise to future challenges. The current licencing of OSM isn't perfect, that's why things are meant to be changing. Even if the ODbL is perfect when it is applied, it may not be in future. We cannot know, and yes that cuts both ways. But we can look at other projects and see that some of the largest and most successful have relicenced. And we can see that new threats to Free Software and Free culture keep arising. Free geodata is unlikely to be any different. And if people are worried that future changes will not be to their liking they need to get involved in the process more actively. These contributor terms define a large part of how the future direction of OSM may be determined. They define in large part that it *may* be determined. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it. Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems with imports. One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. It's hard to see how the ODbL can work without the latter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Hi, On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems with imports. One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls can show anything) that some issues are not part of that consensus which some people claim there is (even if as they said consensus is compromise, which sounds just wrong to me). grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. It's hard to see how the ODbL can work without the latter. Risking going a little off-topic, some members of the LWG have expressed that CC-By compatibility should be a solvable problem. Any change I can imagine that would solve the CC-By compatibility would also solve ODbL compatibility, because they're both affected by this problem, no? (assuming that the relicense clause isn't there) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it. Being able to relicense is certainly good. And if that means less imports that's even better ;) Honestly, and maybe that debate should have been had in more detail long ago, I think that imports are generally bad with only a few limited exceptions, and my vision for the future OSM is not that we are some kind of collection point for other peoples' datasets. The past has shown that imports have a short-term wow effect and very little else to offer. Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 If we have the CT as they currently stand, we can *still* import datasets by granting an exception (i.e. import a dataset for ODbL distribution only with no license upgrade clause for that dataset). Should we ever change the license in the future, that data will be lost, but we *can* make such exceptions on a case-by-case basis. However, if we decide against the relicensing clause in the CT then we don't have the same option (ok let's relicense at the cost of losing that imported data). Imports are overrated and should be strictly limited (and controlled more than they are today). But imports under ODbL do not become *impossible* with the CTs as they are suggested - they just require OSMF approval. So the question is not put very well. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote: The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks. Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. I'm saddened that the people in control of OSM have such little respect for their contributors. OSMF has failed to demonstrate a convincing majority in favour of a license change, but is embarked on a plan to change the license without any further debate or decision point. This kind of response reinforces the impression that many people are now getting of how OSM is being run. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Am 02.09.2010 09:49, schrieb Florian Lohoff: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:55:15PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. I think by you also also mean myself? I feel part of the community and have not been asked if i feel CCBYSA is a bad choice, whether i feel Share-Alike is essential, or if i like the ODBL. I am asked to relicense - Which i wont as it stands now. This is not a matter of the ODBL per se (although i am in much favour of PD) but a matter of how YOU treat the me as a part of the community. Although you might find it funny to live your dictatorship or treat people like above - This is the big difference between Linux and OSM, you and Linus Thorvalds. Linus united the community - you are actively trying to split it with statements like the quoted one. +1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 01/09/10 22:55, SteveC wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote: The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks. Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. I would have hoped the guy who established moderation on the lists would have thought to avoid insulting people. Will the other moderators do their job or just rally round Steve, regardless what he says on the list? Also, try answering Liz's question [1]. If you have previously done so, link to the old discussion. Otherwise, it might be interpreted that you just change the subject to personal attacks to avoid the topic. So I call on OSMF to engage in this discussion (I cc'ed the board). I might add some supplementary questions: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? 2) What is the primary forum to establish community consensus? For gaining consensus, is that forum representative of the entire OSM community? If it is community consensus: 3) Do we have community consensus to change the license? 4) Do we have community consensus to change to ODbL? If yes: 5) On what date was it clear that we had community consensus for the license change? Where is this documented? (Saying it's obvious is not good enough. Documentation please.) 6) On what date was it clear that we had community consensus for CTs/ODbL? Where is this documented? If you can't point me to the answer, or specifically answer these questions, the current direction of OSM is definitely in question. In fact, the information should be at your finger tips. If you can't enter this debate without ad hominem attacks, I suggest you don't waste your time responding. And I am trying to engage OSMF using official channels on this issue too [2], but that debate has not attracted much interest yet. TimSC [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-September/004431.html [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/2010-August/000137.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
TimSC wrote: I would have hoped the guy who established moderation on the lists would have thought to avoid insulting people. Will the other moderators do their job or just rally round Steve, regardless what he says on the list? There are no other moderators. Apart from Steve's announcement, which I believe specifically concerned talk@, all OSM lists are unmoderated. As legal-talk admin I merely look after occasional housekeeping on the list; I don't moderate or filter the content. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Noise-vs-unanswered-questions-tp5488863p5490586.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. If it's not your personal dream licence for OSM, welcome to the club. But, as I say, consensus means compromise. And not just from everyone else. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:39:11 +0100, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. If it's not your personal dream licence for OSM, welcome to the club. But, as I say, consensus means compromise. I do wonder how you can talk about consensus or compromise if part of the issue is how do we get in touch with people that have contributed. It's easy if everyone was on a mailinglist or the wiki. But they aren't. There hasn't even been an announcement made trough the mail system on www.openstreetmap.org. How can someone then possibly say that consensus or compromise has been reached? BTW: not that I've been asked, but currently I would vote against the move to ODbL. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote: The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered my questions, it would have helped. My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having watched it online over the years. The public record shows that there have been several years of conference events, mailing list discussions, working group and board meetings and other events dedicated to deciding on the licence issue. This has resulted in consensus. The actual discussions, debates and votes at events across the different fora have led over time to a compromise that upsets just about everyone equally (apart from those jurisdictions with valid concerns about losing major contributions, who are quite rightly more upset). If you want something more detailed to compare unfavourably to a 100% plebiscite-driven direct democracy like Wikipedia, OCAL, Debian, GNU, Apache and Project Gutenberg don't use then I recommend: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Memorandum_and_Articles_of_Association http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Rob Myers wrote: On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote: The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered my questions, it would have helped. My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having watched it online over the years. The public record shows that there have been several years of conference events, mailing list discussions, working group and board meetings and other events dedicated to deciding on the licence issue. This has resulted in consensus. The actual discussions, debates and votes at events across the different fora have led over time to a compromise that upsets just about everyone equally (apart from those jurisdictions with valid concerns about losing major contributions, who are quite rightly more upset). The current situation as I see it is that a group of contributors (possibly supported by the OSMF?) wants to move to ODbL and that a group of contributors does not want that move. Perhaps there are also people wanting to move to yet another license, and maybe people are indifferent. How big either of these groups are is unknown to me. There was some discussion on how the group wanting to move should be measured, by number of people, by number of edits/contributions possibly only measured over a certain period, but AFAIK no consensus has been reached there. If that is consensus to you... Let's put it this way: if that is consensus to the people wanting the move and the people in charge of the license that governs OSM, then I guess the license move is imminent and undebatable. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
- Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions On 09/02/2010 04:16 PM, Maarten Deen wrote: There was some discussion on how the group wanting to move should be measured, by number of people, by number of edits/contributions possibly only measured over a certain period, but AFAIK no consensus has been reached there. The idea is that people will vote with their feet by agreeing or not to the new terms. However many votes OSM has or does not have, that is the only measure that will count in the end. Which, lets face it, is not the generally accepted idea of what a vote is. Most people, I believe, would think that the idea of a vote is asking the contributors do you think something should happen, yes or no, then if the answer is yes proceeding with the course of action. What you are saying is that the vote is proceeding with the course of action, and if people don't like it they can leave the project. This is not the same as the above paragraph. Not only is it not the same but it begs the question of what happens if such a large percentage of the contributors don't agree the CT's. Do you then go back to those that have agreed them and ask them to agree to the old terms? David If that is consensus to you... Let's put it this way: if that is consensus to the people wanting the move and the people in charge of the license that governs OSM, then I guess the license move is imminent and undebatable. Relicencing is the result of a public process that was started some years ago. The move should be imminent (some people are complaining it is taking too long) but it is not a foregone conclusion (nobody can be *forced* to relicence) and constructive questions about the CTs and the process are being taken on board as far as I can tell. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote: The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks. Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Well we try to answer questions as quickly as possible. Some answers depend on further meetings, others depend on replies from busy professionals. Some answers get lost in the mundane reality of day to day life. Here are a couple of answers for questions that were asked a few weeks back. Not your questions perhaps, but answers to community questions nonetheless. DRAFT http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_FAQ DRAFT As it says, this is a draft, so expect more answers over time. You ask again how much data loss is acceptable? And this has been answered before as, That depends on the local and global context of the particular data. I don't think that this question is unanswered so much as it is unanswerable. Of course every contributor will have their own opinion on how much, and on a particular piece of the planet that may hold more interest for them personally. That's not an answer either, but it does point out the Sisyphean scale of finding One True Answer to your repeated question. Your question regarding legal council suggests that the author of ODbL is the only lawyer that OSMF board have relied upon for advice regarding ODbL and the license change process. This is incorrect. So what you see as the biggest conflict of interest in the project does not exist. As a brief history of OSMF and lawyers, OSMF have had two different firms agree to provide legal advice for OSMF. The second still serve OSMF after taking over when the first firm was unable to respond in a timely matter. I thank both firms for their interest in OpenStreetmap and their support of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. The OpenStreetMap community as a whole, not just the OSMF membership, were invited to contribute to the drafts, release candidates and final version of the ODbL. The Contributor Terms were written by OSMF council at another law firm, not by the ODbL author. Other lawyers in several jurisdictions, from additional firms, have offered opinions at various times on various matters. You ask when the tools will be ready to analyse the impact of licensing questions. Largely the answer is the same as for questions about any software tool in any open project; they'll be ready when they are ready. As an alternative answer they will be ready when you write them. But flip answers are not really my style, so forgive my brief non-answer. During the LWG meeting this week, one participant discussed the tool they were creating. So some work on these visualization tools is proceeding. Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling should be considered for reversion if the owner chooses not to accept ODbL/CT, you should participate in that discussion. Is a simple import of data published elsewhere a contribution that earns the possibility of reversion or is it purely mechanical? On the other hand, we're also answering questions and revising text for additional clarity, and checking revisions with lawyers. So things will keep taking time. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/01/2010 10:17 PM, Liz wrote: 1. From where does OSMF get the mandate to choose the licence? OSMF mandate is to own and run the servers . I got that from the OSMF website. The OSMF's Memorandum of Association, which is the legal expression of the Foundation's purpose, states: 3. The objects for which the Company is established are: 3.1 OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. 4. In support of the objects, but not otherwise, the Company shall have power to do all things incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects or any of them. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Memorandum_and_Articles_of_Association 2. Why is a vote among ~300 people binding on a community of ~300,000 contributors, of whom ~12,500 are active mappers. If anyone believes they have a legally binding obligation to relicence their data they are mistaken. 3. Why does the OSMF use the advice of a lawyer who was party to writing the ODbL? I see there the biggest conflict of interest in the project. Good legal advice is independent, and the price should not involved in determinign whether it is good or bad. In my experience access to the author of a licence is a good thing. 4. How much data loss is acceptable to the pro-ODbL lobby? There is no pro-ODbL lobby. There are individuals and presumably organizations who support relicencing (however enthusiastically or reluctantly, and for whatever reason), but that support is not to my knowledge organized in any way or based on any hidden agenda. 5. When will the tools be available to see how much data worldwide will be removed? - on a world map, not a diagram. A more constructive project would be a visualisation of how long it would take to relicence or recreate the data, and details on how to do so. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling should be considered for reversion if the owner chooses not to accept ODbL/CT, you should participate in that discussion. Who's going to make the decision? After the decision is made, will there be a vote? Will it be run past the OSMF lawyers, and if so, when? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
