[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[80n]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Grant Slater
<openstreetmap at firefishy.com>wrote:

> On 29 September 2010 15:33, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It might greatly reduce the volume on this list if that legal advice
> were
> >> published in full.
> >
> > It would also help if members of the LWG were a little more forthcoming
> in
> > their communications.  Here's what Grant was really trying to say:
> >
>
> Thanks 80n, but those are your words and views.
> Where are you quoting these numbered responses from?
>

Yesterday's License Working Group minutes.  I guess you haven't read them
yet.


> >> OS StreetView Compatibility
> >>
> >> The state of play is as follows:
> >>
> >> 1) We understand that our legal counsel feels that our CT/OBbL terms ARE
> >> compatible with OS license terms. However, we have not looked or
> discussed
> >> the reasons WHY, and need to understand that better.
> >>
>
> Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did
> supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT
> the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need
> further review. I cannot release their breakdown and reasoning without
> their blessing, as you know the lawyer represents OSMF.
>

This has obviously not been communicated to the members of the LWG, so you
are speaking for yourself here.


>
> >> 2) There has been discussed on legal-talk from an individual who has
> been
> >> in direct email correspondance with OS and indicates that they feel our
> >> CT/ODbL terms are NOT compatible. We need to understand this better.
> >>
>
> The question to and the response from OS is very woolly in my opinion.
> The LWG has not yet had a chance to discussed this with OSMF's legal
> council. OS's response emphases the required OpenData attribution
> requirement, which is an opt-in offered by the Contributor Terms.
>

In your opinion.  IANAL and neither are you.



>
> >> 3) Mike has been in discussion with an OSM sympathiser who suggests that
> >> best approach is long-term political lobbying over the heads of the OS.
> >
>
> Not sure where you are quoting this from. Seem sensible to me, it was
> lobbying that got OS to release OpenData in the first place.
>

Who's the "OSM sympathiser"?  What's with all the secrecy?


>
> > In other words there's some lawyer somewhere who *feels* that it's ok but
> he
> > hasn't gotten around to telling anyone why he thinks that's the case and
> > there's at least one other interested party who holds a different view.
> > That's a long way from "OS OpenData _is_ compatible".
> >
>
> 80n you know the lawyer by name and the firm who he represents.


What is that supposed to mean?


> As detailed above I disagree with your summary.
>



> Lets quote what I actually said: "The legal advice is that OS OpenData
> _is_ compatible." OSMF's legal council believes that OS OpenData is
> compatible. Better?
>

No.  Is your lawyer, with less than two years experience practicing
Californian law, well qualified to give advice on the compatibility of two
agreements that both fall under the laws of England and Wales?


>
> Regards
>  Grant
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100929/5a87fb01/attachment.html>