Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: CONDITIONS FOR TIMSC TO RELICENSE HIS DATA (Version 1) This is an interesting document and the first time that I have seen *anybody*, including past and present members of OSMF board, draft such a detailed code of conduct if you will. There are some ideas in there that I would agreee with, maybe in a slightly softer wording, and I would hope that TimSC either stands for election to the board or becomes a member of the AoA group that is also trying to lay down some rules for the future of OSMF. It is unfortunate that TimSC tries to make OSMF reform a condition of his agreement to relicense his contribution. This is of course totally out of the question, and it is sad because even the good ideas in the document are tarnished by this attempt at coercion. One could almost say that now, even if OSMF were to implement some of the usable ideas in that document, they would forever have to defend themselves against the notion that they sold out just to keep a minuscle amount of data (data that is, if RichardF is to be believed, not even universally welcomed by other mappers on the ground). I suggest that TimSC's attempt at negotiation be categorically rejected without further ado; he should be treated exactly the same as any other mapper and if he doesn't reconsider then his contributions will have to be removed and, where desirable, remapped. No single individual can possibly have made a contribution that should allow them to, without even being elected, exert such influence on OSMF. (If TimSC is granted special treatment because of his personal contribution, then what even more special treatment would we have to afford entities like AND, Yahoo, or Bing who have done a lot for us?) At the same time, and even though this may sound conflicting, an effort should be made to involve TimSC in AoA discussions, or he should be encouraged to stand for election to the board, because see first two paragraphs. 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] Private negotiations
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: I suggest that TimSC's attempt at negotiation be categorically rejected without further ado; he should be treated exactly the same as any other mapper and if he doesn't reconsider then his contributions will have to be removed and, where desirable, remapped. No single individual can possibly have made a contribution that should allow them to, without even being elected, exert such influence on OSMF. I live and map in London and some of my contributions would be flushed down the pan if Tim declines to relicense. I agree completely with Frederik. -- Andrew ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations.
The problems with the CC-BY-SA license are fully hypothetical, as there have been no real life problems. There have been some hesitations at commercial users of OSM data with the Share Alike part, but OSM is not bound to enforce the SA part of the current license either, so we could just allow them to use data without SA. I do not feel any particular sympathy for the commercial users of our data to the extent that we need to jeopardize OSM just for their interests. My sympathy is with those who do not have access to data, such as in emergency situations. OSM was best in Haiti. No real problem has occurred with CC-BY-SA, and no initiative has done more harm to OSM in history than then the insisted proposal to change the license (-that-does-not-fit-:CC-BY-SA) to (-the-license-that-cannot-be-enforced-:ODBL) by (-the-people-that-do-not-own-OSM-). OSMF is playing a legal game with the interest of the community. Since months a lot of active mappers have stopped contributing just because of uncertainty about their data. Some of us try to minimize the number of refused CT (about 400) but I have the strong feeling that those are mainly found in the old core of the first 1000 of OSM mappers, the founders that were interested in real free data. The 102000 new signups that agreed with the CT probably just signed (but I cannot prove that) because they were not given a choice, nor knew about the history of OSM, and signed a CT just as they sign one upon installing a new piece of shareware / i-don't-care-ware. I almost fully support the reasoning of TIM, just do not understand why he tried this in private. He must have his reasons. Over all, the procedures of the introduction of ODBL and CT have a strong smell of -this-must-happen-regardless-what-and-who, without anyone mad really clear why this is absolutely necessary. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] Verzonden: donderdag 9 juni 2011 19:30 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations. On 09/06/11 18:18, Nakor Osm wrote: This is wrong: remove the CTs and leave the database licensed as it is today and no data needs to be removed. The license today has problems. Both the license and the way that the license is chosen need to change. - 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] Private negotiations.
Gert Gremmen wrote: Some of us try to minimize the number of refused CT (about 400) but I have the strong feeling that those are mainly found in the old core of the first 1000 of OSM mappers, the founders that were interested in real free data. Wut? AFAIK the three contributors with the longest continuous pedigree in OSM (going by mailing list postings) are Steve, Matt and me, in that order. All three support ODbL+CT. Of the 397 people who have declined ODbL+CT, only two are within the first 1000 user ids. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Private-negotiations-tp6457543p6460059.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] Private negotiations
Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ? -- I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT. Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too? It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed by closed demands. LWG does of course publish minutes, as is right and proper, but there is currently no requirement for those writing to it to disclose their own demands. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
Let's be clear that Cloudmade have not been in any private discussions, nor made any demands of OSMF or the lwg. We support odbl and I think most (if not all) of us have accepted the new cts. I'd be curious where this came from. Jim Brown -CTO CloudMade (Sent from my iPhone) +44 7595 367 664 On 8 Jun 2011, at 10:49, Quintin Driver quentindrive...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ? -- I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT. Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too? It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed by closed demands. LWG does of course publish minutes, as is right and proper, but there is currently no requirement for those writing to it to disclose their own demands. cheers Richard ___ 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] Private negotiations
Quintin Driver wrote: Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ? Wow. I'm not an LWG member and I've never done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and/or CloudMade. Where on earth did that come from and what on earth has it got to do with this thread? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Private-negotiations-tp6451139p6453054.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] Private negotiations
On 8 June 2011 10:49, Quintin Driver quentindrive...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ? Richard Fairhurst is not a member of the LWG or the OSMF Board. He was a member of 2007 OSMF Board. Skobbler, Cloudmade and MapQuest have not had any private discussion with the LWG. Microsoft/Bing had a few questions concerning the ODbL in 2010. See the minutes tagged with Microsoft/Bing here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes#License_Working_Group LWG is made up of: - Henk Hoff - http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios - Grant Slater (me) - Non GIS field - Michael Collinson - Non GIS field. Former board member. http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=Board_Member_Biosoldid=392 - Steve Coast - Resigned Cloudmade 2010. Employee @ Bing. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios - Richard Weait - Resigned CloudMade 2009. Private contractor Former LWG members - Matt Amos - Retrenched from CloudMade 2009, MapQuest current. - Mikel Maron - http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios - Jordan Hatcher - Invited expert from Open Data Commons / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
Quoting Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT. Yes, I attended to previous LWG teleconference and I asked for LWG, as a committee, to enter into direct negotiations with me, an individual mapper. The draft minutes are online [1]. I argued that since LWG were asking something of me (to accept the CTs), that it would be fair if they provide some things I want. (This logic was a pretext, to my mind. The LWG should be routinely influenced by the community, and therefore me, so my conditions shouldn't even be necessary.) They agreed to take a look at my list of conditions and that they did not have any objection to entering into a discussion. I tried to outline my conditions but it a long and detailed list. They fall into three broad themes: increase in the involvement of mapping contributors in OSM decisions, the role of OSMF and licensing issues. I have abandoned trying to talk OSMF out of ODbL adoption. I am looking to the future and trying to influence the future direction of OSM. My future involvement in OSM depends on how OSMF evolves - but that is true for everyone. I will probably have at least some involvement even my worst case scenario - I want to be involved though. But I can't in good conscience give my enthusiastic support to a body that I feel doesn't listen to me... or rather they DO listen to me but I am doubtful if I have any influence at all. Previously, I have put forward my arguments on the mailing list and this doesn't seem to be effective. I have tried other means. My personal negotiation to the LWG is a new approach for me. BTW, OSMF and its committees are all very hard working and I believe have the best intentions. Thanks for the countless hours of work guys! But I am trying to influence them too because I disagree with some of their decisions and policies. I am unsure to what extent this negotiation will be make public. I am hopefully talking to Henk in the next few days and I might have some idea then. If you were to ask anyone in the LWG for what I have requested, there is no prohibition with them sharing it with you. I would discourage it though and I would however be slow to distribute it myself, because the result would be loss of my time for no real gain to anyone. The conclusion of the negotiation will almost certainly be public. Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too? As far as I am concerned, I, as an individual, am having a negotiation with LWG/OSMF. Although it is not secret by any means, I am not sure there is much of a benefit to gain by posting this on this mailing list. All the ideas have previously been discussed on the mailing lists - to no avail. It has consumed a great deal of my time and yours too, probably. For me, the mailing list is a forum where we, the community, can collectively discuss issues. Just from that, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should have every external interaction with OSMF documented on the mailing lists. This doesn't mean I think the community should be cut out of decision making - in fact I believe the opposite. I am sorry if the community thinks I am circumventing them to control OSM. But I am not taking any decisions on behalf of the community and I feel like I don't have much influence anyway. The LWG and OSMF seem to be making the decisions. You should talk to them if you want to be involved in the future of OSM - and that is what I am trying to do. In a way, I am in agreement that it is disturbing that a very obscure discussion could take place and OSMF (in the best interests of the project) was to take a decision based on it without consulting the community. But this IS how OSM operates. The solution is not to move every discussion into a public forum, but to move the decision making process to the public forum. It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed by closed demands. For me, that sounds like a potential problem with the way decisions are made in OSM, not a problem with the possibility of secret/closed/obscure communication between people inside and outside OSMF. The possibility of secret conversations cannot be eliminated. But we can try to make the final decision making process open - I think we can do better than we currently do. I have a feeling I will be accused of being cryptic. I have tried to explain my actions as best as I can. Regards, TimSC [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_119fr26kqdz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
