Ito World Ltd has now taken its own advice on the new draft licence and also on legal issues more generally.
Fyi, our brief was firstly a selfish one, ie can ITO use the data for OSM for the purposes for which ITO wants to use it (ie some of the use cases on the wiki), the second was about the common good, ie is the legal situation for project and the foundation sound. We are as serious about the second as the first, but need to distinguish between them. We received our initial advice in writing yesterday. The general message was that there was a significant amount of legal tidying up that was needed across the board and that the licence in particular needs some significant work in a number of areas, but that it was achievable. We have forwarded this initial advice to 1) Jordan, 2) the Foundation (via the secretary), 3) Cloud Made (via Nick Black) and also 4) to SteveC - who I understand is wearing an OSMF hat for this work. It has been suggested on the list that the OSMF pro-bono lawyer should talk directly to the community; that is of course up the Foundation but it must be remembered that these people are exceedingly expensive and the communication would need to be kept very tight and structured (even if they are working for free). Personally I suggest that the Brief and the Use Cases are used at the main interface between the legal working party and the community. I will ask our lawyer to provide an opinion on the various Use Cases in due course and make that available to the community through the wiki. Does that make sense? Peter Peter Miller CEO, Ito World Ltd
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
