<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>I am not enthusiastic about this proposal. I am not fan of elaborate lawyering, especially<br></div><div>as I consider likely that such attempt may explode in my face as I am not a lawyer.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Also, such eggshell/empty company created to evade liability seems to me something evil,<br></div><div>also when I am one evading liability.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And it would complicate everything significantly.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But...<br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 5, 2020, 20:08 by kathleen.lu@mapbox.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>What would be the purpose of having two separate entities, one an IP holding entity and the other an operational one? Only as a liability shield? I see holes in this proposal:<br></div><div>1) It's not clear at all that OSMF can assign the database rights to anyone else. The Contributor Terms don't account for it. <a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licence/Contributor_Terms&uselang=vi&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licence/Contributor_Terms</a><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Is "to do any act that is" not including such assignment/transfer? Also, OSMF-bis may be<br></div><div>created to be employer, with OSMF still having database rights assigned. <br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>2) Adding another entity would complicate operations, accounting, legal, and corporate registrations, at significant added cost (as a side note,
OSMF is not a charity under English law, and I would very much doubt that an IP holding entity could count as a charity).<br></div></div></blockquote><div>+1<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>3) I'm not an English lawyer, so I would want an opinion from an UK lawyer as to whether a wholly owned subsidiary would be a successful tactic under these circumstances in containing any potential liabilities. (If there's a goal besides creating a liability shield, I've missed the explanation.)<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM Mateusz Konieczny via osmf-talk <<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 5, 2020, 18:16 by <a target="_blank" href="mailto:mike@teczno.com" rel="noopener noreferrer">mike@teczno.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><blockquote><div>On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:01 AM, michael spreng <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:osmf@m.spreng.ch" rel="noopener noreferrer">osmf@m.spreng.ch</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>On 05.08.20 14:14, Frederik Ramm wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>Or the other way round, possibly you meant that by "arms-length<br></div><div>organisations", that the OSMF becomes the nondescript charity that only<br></div><div>has a couple of trademarks and rights, and all the operative business is<br></div><div>run by the "OpenStreetMap Services Ltd." or whatever, which would be the<br></div><div>organisation that can fail without tearing down the project.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was just thinking the same thing. It would feel a lot better if we<br></div><div>could spin employing editor developers out into another organization.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you’re describing the prior status quo here, Frederik. iD editor development was owned by a collection of loosely-aligned organizations who recently decided to halt their support, leaving OSMF in a situation that resulted in this conversation<br></div></blockquote><div>The proposal seems to have OSMF holding critical assets and OSMF-bis that would fund<br></div><div><div>capital intensive things like software development/employ poeple etc.<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>Frederik is not proposing to have this things funded directly by third-parties (status quo).<br></div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div> osmf-talk mailing list<br></div><div> <a target="_blank" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br></div><div> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>