On 01/10/10 11:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I ask once more
"from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?"
It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence
for the data which they've contributed[1].
My mind is slightly boggled by you stating OSMF doesn't have a mandate,
contrary to OSMF's claims. I guess you are conflating the legal right
for license change with the mandate. They really are separate things.
Anyway, the planned relicensing doesn't confer a mandate. It only asks
about an individual's contribution, not about the direction of the project.
What OSMF does have, though, is a mandate to host whatever it likes at
openstreetmap.org, because it's the owner of the domain name:
Ownership of something doesn't imply a mandate to change it. One is a
legal concept, the other is political.
OSMF has determined, through decisions taken by the elected board and
through a plebiscite of its members, that it would like to host an ODbL+CT
dataset at openstreetmap.org, subject to such a dataset being viable.
You didn't mention OSMF having to consult the contributors, which makes
this mandate questionable at best. We are talking about governance of
the OSM project. Legitimacy of governing bodies, in some people's view,
comes from consent of the governed. Without that consent, there is no
mandate.
It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the community.
Rather than me try to make the case, it's more fun seeing what
justifications people are trying to use on the mailing list!
On 01/10/10 12:04, Rob Myers wrote:
OSMF would not be competent if it ignored the problems with the
licence. It would be failing in its duty.
Where is the community mandate for that duty? The OSMF just assuming
powers is what is at the core of the question of mandate.
TimSC
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
