On 29 Jun 2009, at 17:11, SteveC wrote: > > On 26 Jun 2009, at 14:57, Peter Miller wrote: > >> >> On 24 Jun 2009, at 06:56, SteveC wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> One of the things that's resulted from getting help with the license >>> process is that it's been noticed we don't have a lot of the legal >>> furniture, and thus protection and clarity, found frequently >>> elsewhere. We've been offered some fairly standard privacy and terms >>> of use policies: >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_- >>> _Discussion_Draft >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft >>> >>> We've put them up for your input as step 1. These aren't even >>> recommended by us just yet, but to start a discussion on anything >>> that >>> may be bad (or maybe good - that would be novel!) with them? >> >> Thanks for that Steve. Lots to think about there, but it is certainly >> good to start with something standard and then see what needs >> changing. >> >> I fully support the process of adding a clear legal framework to the >> project but the terms and conditions and license can't be considered >> in isolation without looking at the Articles of Association at the >> same time. Andy asked for interest from people to work on the >> Articles >> of Association but I have not heard more about it and there is >> nothing >> on the foundation website. Is there a working group for this? Who is >> on it? Is it publishing minutes? Are there any proposed changes >> available for comment? > > Andy?
oh I see he replied.... > >> >> My concern here is to try to avoid creating an interesting target for >> 'carpet baggers' who may wish to 'privatise' OSM in the way that the >> mutual building societies were privatised in the past ten years in >> the >> UK. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_baggers#United_Kingdom >> >> I suggest that we need to infuse all the legal arrangements with >> efforts to: >> 1) Avoid the OSMF being valuable as a 'take over' target with a >> potential financial value on the open market. Both the articles and >> the terms and conditions should help with this. > > I agree and, well, the key thing is that the OSMF doesn't own the > data, and even if it were the licenser it can't just randomly > privatise the data like CDDB right? And if not, then what is there > that would give it value? > >> 2) To protect the OSMF from hostile actions by excluding >> opportunities >> of financial reward to any parties (members, directors or >> contributors). Both the terms and conditions and articles should help >> with this. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> Peter Miller >> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > Best > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > Best Steve _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
