[OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF

[Jaakko Helleranta.com]

The way I see this is:
Don't allow the term MOU make you not see The Point of this text and that
is a clarification to the license terms.
In plain(?) English the Finnish authority says that the OSM community is
allowed to use the data _in OSM_ with the articulated clarifications
because some in the community have felt that the license is problematic for
using this Open Data in OSM.

Unless I misunderstand something here it seems to me that regardless of the
MOU (that is most usually drafted in collaboration _and_ signed by two
parties) the idea here is that the Finnish authority declares one-sidedly
(because OSM community is practically impossible to do 2-sided agreements
with) that:
If you abide to these (super-simple) rules/requirements then you are free
as in free speech allowed to use the data.

So, find+replace MOU with "License clarification" and perhaps -- just
perhaps-- this seems better?

Or am I missing something (again)?

Cheers,
-Jaakko

--
jaakko at helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154  *
http://go.hel.cc/MyProfile

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:

> > From: Pekka Sarkola [mailto:pekka.sarkola at gispo.fi]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:03 AM
> > To: OSM - talk-fi; legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > I have prepared with National Land Survey of Finland Memorandum of
> > Understanding (MoU) about usage of their datasets by OpenStreetMap
> > activists. Hare is current draft text for everybody to comment:
> >
> > ----
> > Memorandum of Understanding
> >
> > This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MoU") is between the
> > National Land Survey of Finland (hereinafter NLSF) and OpenStreetMap
> > contributors (hereinafter OSM).
>
> Who would this agreement be between? It can't be between OSM contributors.
> It could be between NLSF and *some* OSM contributors who individually agree
> to it but it can't be for all OSM contributors.
>
> It couldn't impose any requirements on users of NLSF or NLSF-derived data
> in
> OSM, including OSM contributors.
>
> A MOU is essentially a contract between two parties, but I don't see who
> the
> second party is in this case.
>
> A contract or MOU makes sense in some cases, like if you are purchasing
> commercial imagery, but there's two clear parties then.
>
> I suppose you could have a data provider who didn't want to make their data
> directly publically available but was willing to let people contribute it
> to
> OSM, but such an import might run into problems following the guidelines.
>
> > OSM are preparing guidelines for all OpenStreetMap data collectors on
> > how to include necessary tag-information for the OpenStreetMap data
> > features.
>
> I'm not saying this isn't important - you'd likely to do this as part of
> the
> import process - but does it belong in a MOU?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120704/9d7eaada/attachment.html>