[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[SteveC]

On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
> >
> > > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> > >> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
> > >
> > > At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to
> > > be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer,
> > > which can't be quoted directly.
> >
> > Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give advice.
> >
> >
> > Steve, could you please share with us a copy of the brief that you provided to WSGR when you engaged them?  It would help greatly if we all knew what terms of reference they were given when they were employed by OSMF.
> 
> I think you were still on the board when we did it, and you have a copy of the agreement they sent? I can't immediately find a copy.
> 
> I have a copy of their standard Letter of Engagement.
> 
> What I'm asking for is details of the instructions you gave to them when you engaged them.  I'm sure they will have records of this if you don't have a record of your first meeting with them.
> 
> You might also want to disclose any subsequent instructions that you have given them.

80n

I don't think I specifically engaged them for a start, it would be OSMF and the LWG. Any engagement as far as I know would be the LWG asking them questions, so you'd have to check the minutes and ask them. Matt has been the point of contact and sent all the emails to WSGR cc: the LWG. I don't think the OSMF had any specific instructions other than the letter of engagement.

I appreciate you're trying to make this all about me personally, and I understand you feel there is a vast conspiracy where I am at the hub, and this has something to do with CM dropping our previous lawyer. My understanding is that you feel we dropped them because they somehow disagreed with the ODbL. As far as I know CM never engaged them to look at the ODbL at all. We changed legal firm simply because they were unresponsive on the basic issues we needed done, like contracts and other stuff because the partner we were dealing with became too busy to deal with us. This is something like 2 years ago.

I can't remember seeing anything from WSGR to CM on the ODbL either. That's mainly because anything we did there would have gone via Jim our CTO. My understanding is that the person at WSGR who deals with CM is different from the person who deals with the LWG for the same reason - it would be a conflict of interest.

If there are any other pieces of the jigsaw I can place let me know, but I'm kind of at a loss on how to break down this attitude that it's all about me.

Steve

stevecoast.com