Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
MJ Ray wrote: > Doesn't being a criminal act mean that the state can investigate (and > prosecute) without waiting for OSMF's lawyers to act? Yes. I apologize for mis-emphasizing this. I'd still say it's a vanishingly small threat, although one that should be made to vanish through a clear statement or licence. > [...] >> But guidelines on trademark use would be good. In particular, the OSM >> trademark should serve the traditional purpose for trademarks of >> protecting consumers from inferior knock-offs. >> e.g - http://www.debian.org/trademark > > Yes and I feel the OpenJDK Trademark Notice would be a more complete > example. Best practice examples are very useful. OpenJDK's notice is here - http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Rob Myers wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > > As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no > > matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a > > criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison. > > Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to > > call it OSM any more? > > Has anyone been contacted by OSMF's lawyers regarding trademark use? Doesn't being a criminal act mean that the state can investigate (and prosecute) without waiting for OSMF's lawyers to act? [...] > But guidelines on trademark use would be good. In particular, the OSM > trademark should serve the traditional purpose for trademarks of > protecting consumers from inferior knock-offs. > e.g - http://www.debian.org/trademark Yes and I feel the OpenJDK Trademark Notice would be a more complete example. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Rob Myers wrote: >Sent: 26 January 2009 9:58 PM >To: Licensing and other legal discussions. >Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting > >MJ Ray wrote: > >> As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no >> matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a >> criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison. >> Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to >> call it OSM any more? > >Has anyone been contacted by OSMF's lawyers regarding trademark use? > >I thought not. > >But guidelines on trademark use would be good. In particular, the OSM >trademark should serve the traditional purpose for trademarks of >protecting consumers from inferior knock-offs. > >e.g - > >http://www.debian.org/trademark > >- Rob. Thanks Rob, When we get to it we will I am sure need to offer some guidance on acceptable use of any marks. What that guidance needs to be somewhat depends on what is the final outcome on the various applications. Everyone needs to understand why the Trademark application was made in the first place, not because Steve wanted to control anything but out of concern that someone might use the openstreetmap logo or name to the detriment of the project. That's something that is of course very close to Steve's heart and likewise that of the whole OSM contributor community. With applications under OSMF control nothing has changed. If anyone feels the need to make a request to use any of the OSM potential marks at this point in time then feel free to send an email to me as Secretary and I'll bring it up with the rest of the OSMF board. We may be able to put out interim guidance. Cheers Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
MJ Ray wrote: > As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no > matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a > criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison. > Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to > call it OSM any more? Has anyone been contacted by OSMF's lawyers regarding trademark use? I thought not. But guidelines on trademark use would be good. In particular, the OSM trademark should serve the traditional purpose for trademarks of protecting consumers from inferior knock-offs. e.g - http://www.debian.org/trademark - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Peter Miller wrote: > I note that "Steve [is] reluctant to publish publicly as it would invite > another round of changes ... Henk asked about getting support from major > contributors. Nick and Andy felt it was against the spirit of the project to > treat some contributors as having special status." > Umm, so Steve Coast (director and shareholder in Cloudmade) and Nick Black > (director and probably also a shareholder in Cloudmade) and Andy Robinson > (paid contractor to CloudMade) think that no one else should be able to > comment on the license, notable Peter Miller (director and shareholder in > ITO) and Frederic Ramm (director and shareholder in Geofabric) who have > asked repeated for access on legal-talk. That's a particularly paranoid interpretation of the quote, I read Nick and Andy's comments as meaning something else entirely - that if there is to be any comments it should be open to everyone, not just selected people. But I wasn't there, and neither were you, so instead of putting forward your conspiracy-interpretations maybe you could just ask for clarifications to the minutes? I really don't like your continual implications that trusted, respected, long-time members of the OSM community are now somehow suspect because they work for a particular company. Steve, Nick and Andy are all stand-up guys. You keep calling into question the integrity of people we all know well and who have and will continue to do great things for OSM, and it's quite tiresome. But then again, I'm a CloudMade employee, so you can now feel free to question my integrity too, I guess. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Peter Miller wrote: > Technical - Tile serving, API restrictions & Servers > I am still not clear that there is a need for API restrictions and what > reduction in bandwidth costs would result. What are the predicted costs of > continuing the current arrangement? Has UCL provided the Foundation with > information that indicates that it is a problem. What would be the cost of > providing it commercially. Could we could raise it? > I have seen no costings. Have the board been presented with such financial > forecasts? [...] > Fyi, we are speaking with a professor we know at CASA, UCL to ask if there > was a problem with bandwidth as far as he knows. He is checking this and > will get back to us and we will report to the group. I think UCL should be > very keen to hang onto this project. Jeez Peter, that's really dangerous ground you're stomping around on. If you're sufficiently unaware of the current arrangements between UCL and OSM that you don't know how much it costs, and unwilling to do sufficient research on your own to find out the equivalent commercial prices, then approaching third parties you happen to "know" at UCL is completely out of order. Can you not even see that you asking a third party to go digging and then you'll "report back to the group" with information that OSMF knows already just is not helpful? Until recently I worked in another uni in London in the ICT division. Safe to say that many arrangements founded on goodwill and understanding are destroyed as soon as someone demands official arrangements to be made public. I can only hope that OSM's relationship with UCL is undamaged by your current quest. And I say that from having an appreciation of the monetary values I refer to in my first paragraph. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On 25 Jan 2009, at 12:12, SteveC wrote: > > On 24 Jan 2009, at 21:09, Peter Miller wrote: >> "Depending upon the precise circumstances this duty not to accept >> benefits could be relevant in the case of the Foundation. Presumably >> Steve Coast Will receive some form of benefit from his other company >> which could be argued to arise as a result of actions which he >> undertakes as a director of the Foundation. >> > > Dear God. You've been asking your lawyer about me personally. > Good lawyers are cautious people and are paid to point out the worst possible outcome - please don't let it get to you. However, we are also pretty cautious and we do expect the foundation to be run carefully in a way that minimises the risk of misunderstanding and we do check things with lawyers. Currently our trust level is going down not up and posts such as the above don't help. You do of course gain one obvious benefit in your capacity as a shareholder in CM from the current situation, and that is that you know well before anyone else what is going to be in it and when it is going to come out. Publishing the draft license would remove any percieved advangate that CM has in this respect and it might be a good idea to do so for that reason alone. Do remember that things are going pretty well overall. We are discussing some thorny issues, but we can resolve them and it will be great, I am sure. There is however a pattern developing where you only post on legal-talk to rubbish suggestions that you don't like and then disappear again. Do please start responding to some of the basic questions on a regular basis and then we can start building up the trust again. Regards, Peter > ___ > 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] 23rd Dec board meeting
On 24 Jan 2009, at 21:09, Peter Miller wrote: > "Depending upon the precise circumstances this duty not to accept > benefits could be relevant in the case of the Foundation. Presumably > Steve Coast Will receive some form of benefit from his other company > which could be argued to arise as a result of actions which he > undertakes as a director of the Foundation. > Dear God. You've been asking your lawyer about me personally. Peter your other actions over the weekend and this... you should be personally and professionally ashamed of yourself. It's utterly disgusting. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On 24 Jan 2009, at 20:26, Grant Slater wrote:
Liz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me)
who's
listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict
of
interest.
That's the way Australian law works.
If I am on a Board (which I am) and some other aspect of my life,
even
non-commercial could affect my decision making I have to declare the
interest.
OSMF Board member bios, declaring other interests.
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-member-bios/
It is not sufficient to just declare ones interest. The following is
the verbatim response to the question when we asked for clarification
from our lawyer. It seems that the board can vote to allow a
'conflict' however it also seems sensible to avoid such a tricky
situation where possible. I am particularly concerned where two
directors both with the apparent conflicts dismiss the concerns of
another directors (ie those of Henk when he suggested more
consultation was appropriate and Steve/Nick disagreed).
"the position under the Companies Act 2006 is that a director has a
duty to avoid a conflict of interest. However the conflict can be
authorised by the Board (section 175, the Act).
"Authorisation of conflict requires the Board to vote to permit the
conflict, such vote to be undertaken by the remaining directors. For
the purposes of this vote the interested director (and any other
interested director) cannot be be counted towards either the quorum of
the Board meeting or the vote.
"Directors also have a duty to declare all interests (including the
nature and extent of such interest) which they have in any proposed
transaction or arrangement to be entered into by the company. Further
declarations must be made as the scope on nature of such interest
changes (section 177, the Act).
"A director also has a duty not to accept benefits from third parties
which are conferred by reason of his being a director or doing (or not
doing) anything as a director. This duty will only be triggered if the
acceptance of the benefit is likely to give rise to a conflict of
interest and/or duties (section176, the Act).
"Depending upon the precise circumstances this duty not to accept
benefits could be relevant in the case of the Foundation. Presumably
Steve Coast Will receive some form of benefit from his other company
which could be argued to arise as a result of actions which he
undertakes as a director of the Foundation.
Regards,
Peter
Regards
Grant
___
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] 23rd Dec board meeting
Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
>
>> You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me) who's
>> listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
>> interest.
>>
>
> That's the way Australian law works.
> If I am on a Board (which I am) and some other aspect of my life, even
> non-commercial could affect my decision making I have to declare the
> interest.
>
OSMF Board member bios, declaring other interests.
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-member-bios/
Regards
Grant
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
> You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me) who's
> listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
> interest.
That's the way Australian law works.
If I am on a Board (which I am) and some other aspect of my life, even
non-commercial could affect my decision making I have to declare the
interest.
Liz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On 24 Jan 2009, at 13:11, Dair Grant wrote:
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Is there not a large potential conflict of interest between SteveC
>> in relation
>> to his driving this change within the Foundation and also being a
>> director of
>> a company that could well benefit from the OSM project not offering
>> a full set
>> of services? I don't know, but I certainly don't have the
>> information to feel
>> comfortable with this initiative until we have some more facts
>> available to
>> us.
>
> I think this is uncalled for.
To be clear, all I am saying is that Steve has two different roles and
that there may be different outcomes preferred in these different
roles, that is my understanding of the phrase 'conflicted', not that
the person has indeed exploited the situation (or as you suggest below
is 'evil'!). I can assure you Steve is not that!
I do note that the following definition of the phrase 'conflict of
interest' does seem to imply that there should indeed be evidence of
an inappropriate decision for the phrase to be used. If so then I am
wrong to use it and I apologise for any confusion given.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conflict+of+Interest
According to the above definition I should have said that there is
only the 'appearance of a conflict of interest' in this case. To quote:
"The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a
potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with
fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney
commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the
majority stockholder."
>
>
> There are any number of technical things you need to think through
> before
> switching from a system that pretty much works to something
> (anything) else.
>
> While it's valid to question what those things are, and their
> significance,
> I don't think you can jump from that to it all being an evil plot
> hatched in
> CM's volcano lair.
I hope the above clarification is enough to show that I am not at all
suggesting on 'evil plot', only that Steve has two distinct interests.
>
> You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me)
> who's
> listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
> interest.
No, you only have one interest, which is that you are a user of the
data and are advocating your position. You are not also the judge and
jury who is deciding the case or indeed the whole process.
>
>
> You could argue that as a commercial interest who's been pushing
> very hard
> for the licence issue to be resolved, perhaps you have some ulterior
> motive
> too...
I don't have a conflict of interest, I have one interest, which is
that we have a good resolution of this quickly that works for my
company. I agree I am pushing for it, but again, I am also not
deciding which way we jump or on the process.
> Nothing useful comes out of that kind of discussion.
>
Agreed.
>
> The current progress on the licence is certainly frustrating for
> those of us
> who are thinking about how our companies can best use and contribute
> to OSM,
> but I suspect it's been a very frustrating process on the OSMF side
> as well.
>
Agreed. I am only suggesting for an improved process which should
reduce frustration on all sides. I am guessing (only guessing) that
SteveC has decided to make this decision 'by decree' because he knows
it is better than repeating a load of futile arguments on legal-talk
where everyone gets cross. My point it that making the decision by
decree has its own serious shortcomings and that we should establish a
better way.
> E.g., we have no idea what the background to "all communications
> with Jordan
> had broken down" was, or what impact that has had. It would be nice
> to know
> what happened, but having a public discussion about that while
> trying to
> resolve whatever the issue was probably wouldn't have been helpful.
>
Its a tough call and it may be appropriate to keep that discussion
'behind closed doors' but that is not a reason to shut out the whole
community out of the whole process.
>
> I would definitely recommend you stand for the OSMF next year, as I
> think
> you could make a valuable contribution to the process (e.g., I agree
> with
> your thinking re the trademark).
>
> I don't know if you'll find the grass is any greener though.
Agreed, however I would probably be more effective helping from the
outside in any number of ways. I believe I am better qualified to
contribute to particular working groups as required than to be on the
board itself. The concept of working groups seems to be emerging at
the moment within the foundation which is a very good sign, but the
process of deciding who is on the working groups currently seems a bit
arbitrary.
>
>
> Although the licence project seems to be moving forward very slowly,
> it is
> at least moving (vs w
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Peter Miller wrote:
> Is there not a large potential conflict of interest between SteveC in relation
> to his driving this change within the Foundation and also being a director of
> a company that could well benefit from the OSM project not offering a full set
> of services? I don't know, but I certainly don't have the information to feel
> comfortable with this initiative until we have some more facts available to
> us.
I think this is uncalled for.
There are any number of technical things you need to think through before
switching from a system that pretty much works to something (anything) else.
While it's valid to question what those things are, and their significance,
I don't think you can jump from that to it all being an evil plot hatched in
CM's volcano lair.
You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me) who's
listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
interest.
You could argue that as a commercial interest who's been pushing very hard
for the licence issue to be resolved, perhaps you have some ulterior motive
too...
Nothing useful comes out of that kind of discussion.
The current progress on the licence is certainly frustrating for those of us
who are thinking about how our companies can best use and contribute to OSM,
but I suspect it's been a very frustrating process on the OSMF side as well.
E.g., we have no idea what the background to "all communications with Jordan
had broken down" was, or what impact that has had. It would be nice to know
what happened, but having a public discussion about that while trying to
resolve whatever the issue was probably wouldn't have been helpful.
I would definitely recommend you stand for the OSMF next year, as I think
you could make a valuable contribution to the process (e.g., I agree with
your thinking re the trademark).
I don't know if you'll find the grass is any greener though.
Although the licence project seems to be moving forward very slowly, it is
at least moving (vs what happened previously, where we had endless
GPS-vs-BSD debates on the mailing list but no real progress whatsoever).
-dair
___
d...@refnum.com http://www.refnum.com/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Comments on the minutes of the 23rd Dec board meeting It is good that the minutes are now posted. I was however disappointed to get them the day of the next meeting and a month after the meeting in question. It is good to see that the November minutes have been approved. Sub-working groups and communications It is very useful to start seeing brief biographies of the directors appearing on the website (http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-member-bios/ ). Does Nick Black have a 'substantial' shareholding in CloudMade? If so I think this should be noted, otherwise 'none' would be clearer than no entry. Also for consistency with other entries Nick's entry should list 'other directorships' not 'directorships'; there is no need to repeat the OSM Foundation directorship. Steve Coast's entry is very thin. I suggest that it should contain the same level of details as the other - I note that the board minutes indicate that they are still waiting for content from him. Mikel gives a link to his blog. This might be an appropriate addition for the other entries to allow people to quickly understand where people are coming from. Can I say that we have a great board - I love the diversity, it should give the foundation a very strong base. Workshops I am pleased that the planning meeting is going ahead and that it will be a full weekend. I am less pleased that the dates were chosen by the board without checking with others (including ITO) who they know are keen to attend, especially as the dates clash with a holiday booked by one of our key people months ago! ITO has made a big investment in OSM development and does expect to be included in and does wish to attend. Were GeoFabric consulted on the dates, I hope so? Can they make it? I hope so. What about other people? Can Richard Fairhurst - author of PotLatch - make those dates? I believe Sundays were not possible for him. Can CloudMade people make it? I guess so since their two main people were in on the decision;) I see this as one of many examples of benefits that CloudMade give themselves by driving the process. Please can some other dates be proposed? I will again suggest that we put up a wiki page where people can sign up, give the dates that they can make, and then we decide a group which date works best. I have also had a request from a non-english native speaker that the attendance should be limited to people who are actively involved in development to keep the numbers down. This is an important strategic technical meeting and as such I think that it is a reasonable request and will make it easier for people for whom English is not a first language to contribute. It suggest that it should not also become a 'local-meetup' for anyone who is interested and lives locally to come along. TradeMarks and Domains I note that the transfer of the trademarks has still not happened (I checked at the IPO last night). The minutes seem to confuse the process of transferring the application with the process of progressing the applications themselves. I have already provided the following information to the board but will post it here for the record. Possible Grant, Andy or Steve could get the form downloaded, filled out, signed and in the post today - it only takes a few minutes. Here is the advice from our lawyer: "The transfer should be straight forward and simple to complete. In case of any doubt, you may wish to let Grant Slater know that the relevant form is TM16 (which can be obtained from the IPO website at www.ipo.gov.uk ). The simple details need to be completed and the form signed by Steve Coast and also on behalf of the OSMF. The TM16 should then be returned by post to the IPO (the address is on the form), together with a £50 fee. I am pleased to see that the other OSM related domains have been transfered to the foundation. OSM Open Data License There are many comments already on legal-talk that I won't repeat here. I do however note from the minutes that "all communications with Jordan had broken down". Also that "No hosting option for the licence is currently available and therefore OSMF may need to host". These seems to indicate that there is a lot more work to be done. I note that "Steve [is] reluctant to publish publicly as it would invite another round of changes ... Henk asked about getting support from major contributors. Nick and Andy felt it was against the spirit of the project to treat some contributors as having special status." Umm, so Steve Coast (director and shareholder in Cloudmade) and Nick Black (director and probably also a shareholder in Cloudmade) and Andy Robinson (paid contractor to CloudMade) think that no one else should be able to comment on the license, notable Peter Miller (director and shareholder in ITO) and Frederic Ramm (director and shareholder in Geofabric) who have
