[OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

[Richard Fairhurst]

Simon Ward wrote:

> It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM.  Ivan has
> already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests
> used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be  
published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before  
complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points  
under discussion.

One of my objectives when I was working with Jordan, and other OSMF  
members, on the licence was that it would be DSFG-compliant. Now we  
may well have failed but at the moment this whole discussion is  
bonkers hypothetical - people are levelling accusations at a licence  
that they haven't even seen.

I didn't submit myself for re-election to OSMF this year, so I can't  
do what I'd like to and just post the licence right here, right now.  
I have suggested that it be published and eagerly await OSMF doing  
so. Maybe others would like to suggest the same. However - and with  
the proviso there may be a host of little niggles of comparatively  
little import - I do think it's a seriously good, well-considered  
licence.

I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876  
messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.

cheers
Richard