[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Two questions to LWG

[SteveC]

Its quite incredible that you can't be bothered to read the output of the LWG but are quite happy to make demands of them.

They're volunteers just like the rest of us.

Have fun,

Steve | stevecoast.com

On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:52 AM, TimSC <mappinglists at sheerman-chase.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> To LWG,
> cc legal talk
> 
> You have not provided an acknowledgement of my recent emails of 11th Aug, 18th Aug (beyond Grant's message of 27th July). Obviously, you are busy but I also don't have time to keep going through my emails and your minutes to see if any discussion has taken place. I first raised the produced works/CC0/PD compatibility issue with you back on 25th May.
> 
> I have reluctantly decided to set a deadline of 7 days (by 9th Sept) for a response. After that, I will assume "communications breakdown" - which, while I assume good faith, is rather inconvenient for us. I do have other issues to discuss, but things have come to a stand still on these relatively simple points.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> TimSC
> 
> On 18/08/10 10:36, TimSC wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I haven't received any response from my email last week from LWG. I am sure you are busy but you should know the answer of the question regarding produced works at this stage.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> TimSC
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:	Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Two questions to LWG
>> Date:	Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:40:26 +0100
>> From:	TimSC <mapping at sheerman-chase.org.uk>
>> Reply-To:	Licensing and other legal discussions. <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> To:	legal at osmfoundation.org
>> CC:	legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> 
>> Hi LWG,
>> cc legal-talk
>> 
>> I noticed that the wording on the relicensing web page has not been 
>> updated [1]. I expressed my concern that the PD wording is rather vague. 
>> According to the LWG minutes, you are already have people using it. 
>> Aren't you going to address this?
>> 
>> Now the LWG have decided on using the existing contributor term document 
>> [2], can you answer my question on allowed licensing of produced works, 
>> as stated in my previous email?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> TimSC
>> 
>> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
>> [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3
>> 
>> On 27/07/10 20:25, Grant Slater wrote:On 26 July 2010 16:56, TimSC wrote:
>> >> Hi LWG,
>> >>
>> >> I noticed the current OSM sign up page has a PD dedication that is worded as
>> >> "In addition to the above agreement, I consider my contributions to be in
>> >> the Public Domain". If this is an actual legal statement, it is phrased too
>> >> colloquially. The concept "public domain" is only a short hand for a certain
>> >> concept (a PD-like license) and can't really by used in the way it has been.
>> >> It could be clarified by using a wikipedia-PD type declaration or PDDL or
>> >> similar statement.
>> >>
>> >> If this page is only to gauge user interest in PD, it is also poor as it
>> >> effectively has a default value "no". It should be a multiple choice with
>> >> "yes", "no", "I don't know" with no default, except perhaps the latter
>> >> option.
>> >>
>> >> I urge you to have this reworded for clarity and balance. Also, the
>> >> relicensing question for existing users should also have this improved
>> >> wording.
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003683.html
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003688.html
>> >>
>> >> And also I never really had a definitive answer to my previous question: can
>> >> produced works be released using a PD-like license? The two sides of the
>> >> case are summed up here:
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/006100.html
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/006108.html
>> >>
>> >> I hope you have time to resolve these issues. I don't particularly want to
>> >> raise this in person at your regular telemeetings; all the necessary
>> >> information is public. But let me know if further discussion is required,
>> >> and I will participate.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Tim
>> >>
>>   
> 



Steve

stevecoast.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100902/dca64115/attachment.html>