On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:01:12 +0100 Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > I ask once more > > > > "from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?" > > The vote. > > > OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a > > community. > > Any representational or governing body will be a "small set of > persons". Depending on which sense of "representative" you are using, > the vote rings true given my experience of OSM debates around > licencing and OSMF is as open and responsible or more so than other > Free projects. > > Anyone can join OSMF. > > - Rob. > The vote is not a mandate. It is a vote of a subset of persons. Being a member of the OSM community is not a condition of belonging to OSMF. Not everyone can join OSMF. Joining is restricted to persons with enough spare cash to pay a fee in Pounds Sterling, access to a system for international money transfer if not in the UK, and a number of other practical points dependent on UK law - I would expect that minors are not supposed to be voting members of a UK company. The ability to manage well in written English would be a practical requirement. To pick an obvious example, the persons who mapped Nigerian slums are unlikely to have the financial resources to join. Most students don't have such resources. I would not expect the students involved in mapping ShimlaPuri to have the financial resources. OSMF was set up for a particular purpose. Because responsibility for the servers implies responsibility for the contents, the extension was made to the licence. OSMF extended itself this privilege, not the OSM community. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
