[Local-chapters] Actions concerning the license

[Henk Hoff]

Kate,

(see inline)

2010/3/21 Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>

> Henk,
>
> Can you give an example of how this workflow would work?  For example
> one of the main reasons I am interested in the forming of the U.S.
> chapter is to be able help obtain data from U.S. local/state/national
> government organizations.

+1


> If the U.S. chapter wants to meet with
> local government is that acceptable?

Absolutely no problem.


> The license is going to come up?
>
You know what our license is. There are several sources on the web (and our
wiki) with background info you can use or refer to. If a question like "is
our XYZ-license compatible with OSM's license?" and the answer is not clear,
you could check with the LWG.
Everyone can understand that you do not have answers to al kinds of legal
questions right away.

It's not that every time you say something about the license that has to
checked with the Foundation. It's about that what you say about the license
is in line with the position of the Foundation. This to prevent that the
chapter in Italy explains the license different than the chapter in Denmark.


>  This is different on the other hand from publishing a statement on
> the license as well.   How do you see these conversations happening
> between the chapters and the OSMF?
>
Questions regarding the license can be asked to the LWG (
legal at osmfoundation.org) which is a working group of the Foundation.


>
> Thanks,
>
> Kate Chapman
> user: wonderchook
>

Cheers,
Henk


>
> 2010/3/21 Henk Hoff <toffehoff at gmail.com>:
> > Just a little background on the reason for this in the Chapters
> > requirements.
> > The OSMF is the official publisher of the database (= licensor of
> database).
> > One of the tasks of the Foundation is to check whether organizations that
> > use the data are doing so in compliance with the license.
> > Now, when a chapter (as a representative of the OSMF) is giving wrong
> > advice/instructions concerning the license, the OSMF may have a weak case
> if
> > they see that someone is not using the data in compliance with the
> license.
> > Because the counterpart could argue "OpenStreetMap [whatever] told me it
> was
> > ok to do so".
> > It's not that a chapter may not say anything about the license, but it
> needs
> > to check whether the info they are giving is correct.
> > And hey, if you really want to get in all the legal issues: join the
> License
> > Working Group! (legal at osmfoundation.org)
> > Cheers,
> > Henk
> >
> > 2010/3/21 Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> I wanted to give a little time in between issues to discuss...
> >>
> >> The other issue that came up in the meeting, for the US group, was
> >> this sentence:
> >>
> >> "All actions concerning the license must be approved by the Foundation."
> >>
> >> Our understanding of this was was a way of saying "The OSMF will
> >> direct the license of the OSM dataset", which would mean things like
> >> changing the license from CCBYSA to ODbL, updating the ODbL, etc.
> >>
> >> That makes good sense, but the wording seemed a vague.
> >>
> >> At the meeting, Henk explained that it wasn't just the license, but
> >> any action around the license. He gave the example of a chapter
> >> creating a document which summarized the OSM license and specified
> >> requirements for import. Coincidentally I'd made such a document a few
> >> weeks earlier and discussed it on the osm-professional list.
> >>
> >> It summarizes the requirements for an organization to submit data into
> >> OSM according to the license (either CCBYSA or OBbL).
> >>
> >> From the phone conference, it would appear that the OSMF would want
> >> final approval of any such document.
> >>
> >> I understand the desire of the OSMF to control the license, but I
> >> don't see why the OSMF would be in control of documents around the
> >> license (unless they were patently false, for example).
> >>
> >> The Chapters are going to be doing outreach and part of that outreach
> >> will need to cover the license, especially if we're talking to
> >> organizations. Requiring prior approval for all documents regarding
> >> the license seems like an immense amount of work on the part of the
> >> OSMF, and something which could greatly hinder the Chapters.
> >>
> >>
> >> With this and the other concern I brought up in the other thread, I'd
> >> like to strongly suggest the wording of the license section be
> >> something more like:
> >>
> >>
> >> Data license
> >>
> >> The OpenStreetMap Foundation is the publisher of the OpenStreetMap
> >> database and has therefore the primary responsibility over the
> >> dataset. Chapters should be committed to keeping the OpenStreetMap
> >> dataset unified and under the primary responsibility of the OSMF and
> >> will retain primary leadership over the data and its license.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Serge
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Local-chapters mailing list
> >> Local-chapters at openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Local-chapters mailing list
> > Local-chapters at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/local-chapters/attachments/20100321/bdbc6233/attachment.html>