[OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Mon Jun 29 17:11:44 BST 2009

On 26 Jun 2009, at 14:57, Peter Miller wrote:

> On 24 Jun 2009, at 06:56, SteveC wrote:
>> Dear all
>> One of the things that's resulted from getting help with the license
>> process is that it's been noticed we don't have a lot of the legal
>> furniture, and thus protection and clarity, found frequently
>> elsewhere. We've been offered some fairly standard privacy and terms
>> of use policies:
>> 	http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_-_Discussion_Draft
>> 	http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft
>> We've put them up for your input as step 1. These aren't even
>> recommended by us just yet, but to start a discussion on anything  
>> that
>> may be bad (or maybe good - that would be novel!) with them?
> Thanks for that Steve. Lots to think about there, but it is certainly
> good to start with something standard and then see what needs  
> changing.
> I fully support the process of adding a clear legal framework to the
> project but the terms and conditions and license can't be considered
> in isolation without looking at the Articles of Association at the
> same time. Andy asked for interest from people to work on the Articles
> of Association but I have not heard more about it and there is nothing
> on the foundation website. Is there a working group for this? Who is
> on it? Is it publishing minutes? Are there any proposed changes
> available for comment?


> My concern here is to try to avoid creating an interesting target for
> 'carpet baggers' who may wish to 'privatise' OSM in the way that the
> mutual building societies were privatised in the past ten years in the
> UK.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_baggers#United_Kingdom
> I suggest that we need to infuse all the legal arrangements with
> efforts to:
> 1) Avoid the OSMF being valuable as a 'take over' target with a
> potential financial value on the open market. Both the articles and
> the terms and conditions should help with this.

I agree and, well, the key thing is that the OSMF doesn't own the  
data, and even if it were the licenser it can't just randomly  
privatise the data like CDDB right? And if not, then what is there  
that would give it value?

> 2) To protect the OSMF from hostile actions by excluding opportunities
> of financial reward to any parties (members, directors or
> contributors). Both the terms and conditions and articles should help
> with this.
> Regards,
> Peter Miller
>> Best
>> Steve
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



More information about the legal-talk mailing list