[OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.gremmen at cetest.nl
Sun Apr 17 16:40:13 BST 2011

Mikel,  stop trying to smooth talk.

The CT  says fundamentally nothing about GPS and entering data, but
talks just

about transferring rights to an arbitrary group of individuals called
OSMF, members of the osm community, (currently)with and (in the future?)

the best intents for the project.

So do not try make it more fuzzy then it is.

The License is about letting OSMF decide how the project will go
regarding the open and free aspects of OSM.

That is is the *pain*.

It's about the future of the project regarding its core, being free to
anyone, and not have this decided

by a foundation, however  good the current intentions are.

The CT tries to safeguard the open and free aspects, but the wording is
really binding, and we all know

that legal texts are there to be interpreted .

We all know that also 2/3 of active contributors will always be found,
there are simply too

many people that don't matter, and do what they're asked.


In addition to that a lot of us don't like this license stuff. And don't

to be submitted to contracts if not absolutely necessary.

And don't like the principle of defending any imaginary legal rights by


if one day the OSM will be competitive qualitatively with commercial

the data will be copied before we notice, and their lawyers (and there
will be a bunch of them)

will have no problem with our stupid licenses. And we will all stand
back and wonder how !


Gert Gremmen


Van: Michael Collinson [mailto:mike at ayeltd.biz] 
Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 14:41
Aan: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the


On 17/04/2011 13:14, Francis Davey wrote:


You, or anyone else, might think that these extra terms make the
overall deal a bad one. You might want (for example) OSMF to be more
restricted in what it can do with a contribution.
But that is a different argument from arguing with clause 2.

And for information to several respondents is a restatement of *intent*
behind clause 2, (thanks Francis for talking about the structure and
about how well or not it works):

OpenStreetMap is fundamentally about you going out with GPS devices and
entering your results, often augmenting them with tracings and
refinements from Yahoo and now Bing imagery. Your contribution
completely belongs to you whether or not you continue to participate
and, generally, when you die it is passed on to your estate and heirs
for a set number of years. Clause 2 asks that subject only to the must
of re-distribution under a free and open license and the option of first
level attribution, you freely throw your contribution into the pot.
Future decision making is now subject to collective, not individual,

In the case of imports, it is our intent that if the data is conformant
with the then current end-user license, there should be no legal bar to
importing it. It is then up to future generation to look at any conflict
with any new license and decide whether to excise the data or abandon
the change.  There is also a moral duty on the current generation to
decide how much they want to tie the hands for the future.

There were also questions about the fate of a proposal regarding imports
to extend the preamble of the clause like this:

Subject to Section 3 and 4 below and to the extent that you are able to
do so, ...

The License Working Group is happy with the primary intent of the
addition but felt that there were unfortunate side-effects if included
in the general terms.  I personally do not currently see any obstacle to
special accounts being set up for specific discrete imports with this
wording.  This would also give the community a chance to monitor what it
feels are good/bad candidates without being overly proscriptive,
something we lack at the moment.

License Working Group

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110417/af07cb2b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list