[OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations

[Richard Fairhurst]

TimSC wrote:
> Yes, I attended to previous LWG teleconference and I asked for LWG, 
> as a committee, to enter into direct negotiations with me, an 
> individual mapper. The draft minutes are online [1].

Thanks for the link, which I see contains your conditions. As I know there
are people on this list who won't look at Google-hosted documents on
principle I'll copy and paste them here for convenience.

[quote begins]

CONDITIONS FOR TIMSC TO RELICENSE HIS DATA (Version 1)

This list is negotiable. The rationale for each point is omitted but I am
willing to discuss it as needed.

DECISION MAKING IN OSM

1.1) All future significant decisions regarding OSM licensing, or changes to
OSM features that might impact the ability of contributors to edit the
database, or third parties to use the OSM database, shall be discussed and
decided in a public forum. If consensus cannot be reached in the public
forum, a vote of all active contributors shall be conducted. Significant
decisions shall not be made by committee concerning OSM, unless that
committee has a direct, relevant and democratic mandate from all active OSM
contributors. This includes the decision to switch the database to ODbL.

1.2) Significant decisions shall be documented on the OSM wiki, including
the rationale and supporting references.

1.3) The process that OSM reaches decisions shall be documented on the wiki.

1.4) Future proposal documents and communications from OSMF to the OSM
community give appropriate weight to dissenting views in the community, and
written from a neutral point of view.

1.5) The OSM database shall not be filtered based on licenses agreement
until the feasibility of repairing the database to a usable state in a
reasonable time frame is determined.

1.6) A vote shall be conducted to determine the support of SA vs. non-SA, BY
vs. non-BY, single vs. multiple licenses, fork vs. no fork in the OSM
mapping community. This shall determine OSMF's priorities in the direction
of licensing and allocation of resources.

1.7) OSM policy that significantly affects mapping contributors shall not be
decided or ratified by votes of the OSMF membership. A future version of the
OSM license (and CTs) shall address this. Indivual members of OSMF may of
course participate in the discussion through community wide channels. OSMF
policy that does not significantly affect OSM contributors may be determined
by OSMF membership voting.

OSMF AND LWG

2.0) Forum moderation, if used, should be community lead and moderators
shall be selected based their excellent conduct. Users with a history of ad
hominem attacks, or controvercial figures, will not be considered as a
moderator. Views expressed on the forum shall not be censored merely because
they are unpopular, but may be censored if they are maliciously repetitive.

2.1) OSM community leaders shall be held to the highest standard of conduct
when communicating with anyone regarding OSM. OSMF committees and senior OSM
community figures shall privately admonish and advise those of their number
who fall short in this regard. If an OSMF committee member persists in poor
behaviour, the committee shall ask for their resignation.

2.2) OSMF shall reaffirm that they are "supporting but not controlling the
project" as stated on their wiki and recognise that the mapping contributors
are the primary generators of value in OSM. The wiki shall be updated to
remove the reference that OSMF have "no desire to own the data".

2.3) LWG commits to answering questions on license compatibility and usage
promptly (or to publically disavow this role). The LWG shall clarify which
licenses may be used for produced works.

2.4) OSMF shall not combine opinion polling with relicensing questions, as
seen with the recent CTs/PD web page.

2.5) Discussions between OSMF and their legal advisors should centrally
document and be made public where possible. Areas that remain private must
be agreed with the OSM community.

2.6) OSMF shall strive to maintain at least civil relations with fork
projects and other related open data projects. Mutual support between these
communities should be encouraged, particularly when it fits with OSM's
mission statement (to "create and provide free geographic data").

2.7) Direct and specific questions to any OSMF committee from a external
party shall receive a personalised response within a set time frame. If the
information is not known or not decided or cannot be provided, that is fine.
This shall work rather like the FOI system in the UK; questions clearly
intended to harress OSMF may be ignored.

2.8) OSMF committee members shall affirm that they are representitives of
the community, not dictators until the next election. If the OSM community
wants "OSMF to steer in some direction", they shouldn't have to defeat the
current OSMF board in elections to enact change (except as a last resort).

LICENSING

3.1) Users to be able to optionally license their contributions under
alternative licenses in account preferences (such as CC0, CC-by). This
information shall be accessible via the main OSM API, on a per user basis.

3.2) The OSM database shall continue to be made available under CC-by-SA
(but not necessarily exclusively that license) until such time as multiple
significant instances of license violations are provided, that ODbL would
have reasonably prevented, and a general concensus of contributors is
reached to retract CC-by-SA.

3.3) OSMF shall commit to address the deficiencies and abiguities of ODbL
and the CTs raised by the mapping community in a future version of the OSM
license.

3.4) LWG shall recognise that lengthy IP protection is contrary to OSM
project goals and to introduce a protection sunset cause, causing map data
to fall into the public domain after a suitable period (such as 20 years),
in a future version of the OSM license.

3.5) LWG shall address the issue of OS Opendata tracers agreeing to the CTs,
either by removing offending data or rejecting the CT acceptance from
offending users. The LWG shall strive to prevent future license violations.

3.6) The ODbL and any future custom licenses should be transparently peer
reviewed by third party bodies specialising in open data (OSI, FSF, CC,
etc). Licenses with serious deficiencies shall not be adopted.

3.7) OSMF shall have the unilateral power to modify the CTs removed and a
mechanism for democratic management of the CTs shall be established.

3.8) When OSMF is negotiating with third parties for use of data or
resources, the terms should be neutral as to which project uses them. The
Bing imagery shall be renegotiated to either drop the requirement for
tracing to be shared with OSM or to insist that all tracing be placed in the
public domain. Also, OSM shall not be referred to as openstreetmap.org, as
that is only a domain and not an entity that can share data in this fashion.

3.9) For all database nodes, ways and relations that I have jointly edited
with other contributors, I will re-license each individual item if the
following conditions are met. Firstly, for each item, the other editors
agree, to the maximum extent they are able, to waive copyright, database
rights and any other IP rights that may be waived. Secondly, each database
item for which they do not possess full IP rights, they use an appropriate
source tag to indicate the origin of the data.


--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Private-negotiations-tp6451139p6457117.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.