[OSM-legal-talk] The big license debate

[Mike Collinson]

At 01:14 AM 1/03/2007, Laurence Penney wrote:
>Perhaps it would be helpful to set out what should happen when someone
>contacts OSM, asking if they can use the data in a particular way.
>
>Here are some options:
>
>1. We shrug, and say get a lawyer to read the license.
>2. Steve says yes or no.
>3. Certain OSM Foundation guardians vote yes or no.
>4. The OSM community votes yes or no.
>
>I'd be interested to hear what other people's ideal might be.

Speaking both as a private individual confused as to whether he can 
actually do anything at with OSM data in combinations with other 
licensed data, and also as a representative of a commercial entity, 
my priority would be actually to get an answer and to get that answer 
in a reasonably timely fashion.

Therefore my ideal would be:

1. The license rests with the OSM Foundation, not with individual 
contributors.  At present your option 1 is the only one operative and 
the lawyer's first question will be "who is 'we' ?"

2. There should be a very clear "front page text" statement ideally 
linked to further explanation and perhaps examples - and it 
harmonises with the actual license.  That will stop 99% of enquiries 
right there.  For a commercial entity, my chief concern is risk.  I 
want the licensor to be happy and not sue me or critically stop my 
business.  If I get what the licensor wants to do and there appears 
to be no grey area, I can make my decision.

2. Certain OSM Foundation guardian(s) vote yes or no.  To protect the 
Foundation and the time of the guardians, the answer should probably 
never be "Yes" but "As you have presented your enquiry we see no 
current objection to your intended use as long as you x y z".

3. OSM Foundation guardian(s) should use discretion in difficult or 
precedent setting cases and if necessary escalate: put to the whole 
governing board and/or canvas opinion from the membership.

Mike
Manila