<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yiv1014959863"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_343398"><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_343397"><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322926">Simon<br clear="none"></div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322926"><span><br clear="none"></span></div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322926"><span>> </span><span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_323042" style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">simply that as a consequence of the planned "for pay" premium </span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">product there are going to have to be changes to the free version or you </span><span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_323136" style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">are not going to have a viable product</span></div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322926"><span><br clear="none"></span></div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322926">Don't think that a product frame is useful for talking about the Foundation. We do want to be clear on what kind of responses we're committed to. Even outside of anything new -- for instance Board is committed to meeting every month, takes circulars within X days, etc. Would be great for this to be really clear for all parts of OSMF, etc.</div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322926"><br clear="none"></div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322926"><span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322980">> </span><span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322978" style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">desperately looking for that person that represents the OSMF, negotiates </span><span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322977" style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">T&Cs with them and in the end signs an agreement giving them "security"</span></div><div></div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322893"> </div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322893">Haven't seen anything like that mentioned or discussed at all. OSMF can not renegotiate T&Cs. We'll of course, when and if GC happens, need a clear policy on what they can and can't do.</div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322893"><br clear="none"></div><div id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322893">> <span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_323098" style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">it doesn't actually take </span><span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_323132" style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">load off the LWG, if at all it increases it, because it adds somebody </span><span id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_323170" style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">paid for pestering the LWG for answers that might simply not be so easy </span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:13px;">and fast to determine</span></div><div class="yiv1014959863signature" id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322925"><br clear="none"></div><div class="yiv1014959863signature" dir="ltr" id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322925">If this would be the case, then we failed. I imagine a GC would work closely with the LWG and help them to work even better.</div><div class="yiv1014959863signature" dir="ltr" id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322925"><br clear="none"></div><div class="yiv1014959863signature" dir="ltr" id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322925">-Mikel</div><div class="yiv1014959863signature" id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322925"><br clear="none"></div><div class="yiv1014959863signature" id="yiv1014959863yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_322925">* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron</div> <div class="yiv1014959863qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461780364624_343406"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div></div></div></div><div class=".yiv1014959863yahoo_quoted"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yiv1014959863yqt1944665558" id="yiv1014959863yqtfd63419"><div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Friday, April 29, 2016 9:19 AM, Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch> wrote:<br clear="none"></font></div> <blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);margin-left:5px;margin-top:5px;padding-left:5px;"> <br clear="none"><br clear="none"> <div class="yiv1014959863y_msg_container">Frederik<br clear="none"><br clear="none">You are in turn misunderstanding, it is simply a product differentiation<br clear="none">issue.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I wasn't even remotely implying that the board wanted to shut the LWG<br clear="none">down, simply that as a consequence of the planned "for pay" premium<br clear="none">product there are going to have to be changes to the free version or you<br clear="none">are not going to have a viable product (and no you don't have a viable<br clear="none">product as described). The simplest and time honoured route is to no<br clear="none">longer market the free version. The alternative is to bolster the<br clear="none">profile of the premium, but the options there are very limited as you<br clear="none">point out. Anything that goes in the direction of business plan vetting,<br clear="none">and special releases/agreement risks running afoul of Contributor Terms<br clear="none">clause 3, which is why we have historically shied away from such (not to<br clear="none">mention that the former likely would eat up all the extra income and more) .<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Which brings us to the crux of the matter, IMHO the main bone of<br clear="none">contention between corporate entities and the OSMF is that some are<br clear="none">desperately looking for that person that represents the OSMF, negotiates<br clear="none">T&Cs with them and in the end signs an agreement giving them "security"<br clear="none">(not necessarily better or different terms). And while that is likely<br clear="none">driven a bit by the current OSM distribution licence, I don't believe<br clear="none">that it would go completely away even if we were using CC0*.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The other part the proposal gets wrong, is that it doesn't actually take<br clear="none">load off the LWG, if at all it increases it, because it adds somebody<br clear="none">paid for pestering the LWG for answers that might simply not be so easy<br clear="none">and fast to determine. At least the proposal should cover taking over<br clear="none">the grunt work of covering the non premium customer inquiries (as<br clear="none">outlined above at a to be determined lower service level, say minimum<br clear="none">delay a week, only in e-mail, only in English etc).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Simon <br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div class="yiv1014959863yqt1366172705" id="yiv1014959863yqtfd87615"><br clear="none">Am 29.04.2016 um 08:58 schrieb Frederik Ramm:<br clear="none">> Hi,<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> On 04/29/2016 07:00 AM, Simon Poole wrote:<br clear="none">>> [...] in other words the single point of contact has been there as<br clear="none">>> long as it has been legally possible to talk with one voice. The<br clear="none">>> discussion now is about removing that (for the plebs)<br clear="none">> This is perhaps a good point to remind everyone that the OSMF board does<br clear="none">> not intend to remove or diminish LWG. This is a straw man, and whoever<br clear="none">> put that up either suffered from a misunderstanding or from paranoia.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Let's try to turn this into a constructive discussion:<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 1. OSMF/LWG have, in the past, shied away from giving too concrete legal<br clear="none">> advice. If someone came to us with a complicated "can I do this and<br clear="none">> that" question, we might have given them some hints but we always ended<br clear="none">> with "ultimately, we're not lawyers, and even if we were, we wouldn't be<br clear="none">> YOUR lawyers, so go and ask a lawyer before you proceed".<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 2. Businesses are unhappy about this; they would much rather have us<br clear="none">> give them a yes-or-no answer which they could then rely on.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 3. We want to attract more businesses as corporate members so that our<br clear="none">> future is secured financially.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Now we can't really change #1; we can't vet a business model - not least<br clear="none">> because even if we have a certain interpretation of our own license, it<br clear="none">> might well be wrong! So we'll still keep saying to people "ultimately,<br clear="none">> ask a lawyer".<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> But what we *can* do is at least make it easier for the legal department<br clear="none">> of a business to assess the situation - make it easier for them to "ask<br clear="none">> a lawyer". It is still them who have to read and interpret the license<br clear="none">> and draw the right conclusions from it, but we can offer that *we* pay a<br clear="none">> lawyer to whom we explain the license and how we interpret it, and that<br clear="none">> lawyer can then talk to the business' legal department and explain<br clear="none">> things to them in words and terms that they can easily work with.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> This is the "value add" that we essentially sell to corporate members:<br clear="none">> We retain a lawyer as a go-between between our own LWG and the legal<br clear="none">> department of whoever needs to interpret our license.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> They don't get a different license because of that, or more committment<br clear="none">> from the OSMF, and they don't get their business model vetted. But they<br clear="none">> get the warm fuzzy feeling that they have someone on our side who speaks<br clear="none">> their language. They don't buy a privilege; they buy a translation<br clear="none">> service that might help avoid misunderstandings between what our normal<br clear="none">> project members in LWG say and their legal department. -- That doesn't<br clear="none">> make everyone else "the plebs", especially as someone without their own<br clear="none">> legal department will most likely prefer to talk to LWG than to talk to<br clear="none">> our lawyer ;)<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Now speaking of misunderstandings, we (board) carry some responsibility<br clear="none">> for the "OMG board wants to scrap LWG" misunderstanding. The corporate<br clear="none">> membership tiers concept refers to a few things that aren't clearly<br clear="none">> specified and don't exist yet - e.g. the "business conference", the<br clear="none">> "general counsel", etc., and without further explanation it might sound<br clear="none">> like we have a drawer full of plans about what these things will be (we<br clear="none">> just don't tell you, har har har). Truth is, this whole thing is a draft<br clear="none">> that we're sharing early and we have *not* worked out the details yet.<br clear="none">> We heard that business users would like a business conference - so we<br clear="none">> pencilled one in. We heard that business users would like to be able to<br clear="none">> talk to a lawyer - so we added something to the draft. These things are<br clear="none">> certainly not impossible to do once the money is there to fund them. Who<br clear="none">> exactly briefs that lawyer and how, we haven't even designed.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Is it therefore careless to share such a draft early? Would you rather<br clear="none">> have us flesh out everything in detail and share when we have lined up a<br clear="none">> lawyer to contract and we're ready to take a vote?<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Bye<br clear="none">> Frederik<br clear="none">><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div><br clear="none"><div class="yiv1014959863yqt1366172705" id="yiv1014959863yqtfd28271">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">osmf-talk mailing list<br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br clear="none"></div><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div> </blockquote> </div></div><div class="yiv1014959863yqt1944665558" id="yiv1014959863yqtfd13855"> </div></div><div class="yiv1014959863yqt1944665558" id="yiv1014959863yqtfd97635"> </div></div></div></body></html>