[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).

Simon






More information about the legal-talk mailing list