[OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Aug 24 15:39:43 BST 2011

Am 24.08.2011 16:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> ...
> One of the PD-but-not-CT-people said something like "I don't want to 
> give any kind of explicit assurance/permission to OSMF". I.e. they 
> don't want a contract with OSMF. But I think that could be remedied by 
> offering them a differently worded declaration to "sign", one that 
> would subsume the CTs but not be specific to OSMF.
> Such a document might well be more complex than the CTs but simplicity 
> or complexity does not seem to be the issue.
Well, the issue seems to be more that they simply can't get
themselves to agree to the same terms as the rest of the plebs.

I have a non-diplomatic response, that has to with lakes and
jumping, that I'll refrain from giving now.

As I pointed out the last time this was discussed, going down
the path of a separate agreement raises tons of issues, for
example wrt voting rights (should parties to such an agreement
get them or not). I don't believe that, except if the interested
contributors get to a consensus among themselves and actually
produce such a document, we will have agreement on it within
a useful time frame (aka in less than twelve months).


More information about the legal-talk mailing list