[OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Mon Jun 29 17:13:33 BST 2009


On 29 Jun 2009, at 17:11, SteveC wrote:

>
> 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?
>
> Andy?

oh I see he replied....

>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

Best

Steve





More information about the legal-talk mailing list