[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Robert Banick rbanick at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 09:59:13 UTC 2016

Thanks for the clarification Frederik, that’s really helpful. Given how my
own business affairs work better when I’m able to speak to a partners GIS
staff I can imagine that would be useful to corporate partners.

Muki, I appreciate what you say about ambiguity having a purpose. But your
examples don’t really make sense to me. How is having people not use OSM
data good? How is creating barriers to entry and rewarding those who muddle
through them the best course? People decide not to engage with the
community all the time now and while it’s not ideal it’s their right. If
that’s a problem then we write that into the license, clearly, and make
people engage in a structured and well-understood fashion.

My feeling is that ambiguity probably did serve a purpose to OSM at one
point but that the project is mature now and should reflect that with
greater clarity about legal matters. We know who we are, we  know what
people want from us and we know how we want them to get it.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:22 PM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 04/28/2016 11:11 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > So what exactly are you suggesting that corporate members get over and
> > above what anybody else gets?
> I'd say that the add-on here (over and above what anyone gets for free)
> is a translation into legalese.
> Today, if someone writes to legal-questions they will get a response but
> it will not be a response from someone who speaks legalese and if
> they're unlucky then the person responding might also need a couple
> iterations to actually understand what is being asked when it's in
> legalese.
> The service offered to corporate members is that they can send their
> question in legalese, and a lawyer will look at it and then ask {board,
> LWG, legal-questions ...} about the situation (in normal language) and
> will convert the response into legalese and send it back.
> The service offered to corporate members is *not* that OSMF will
> suddenly commit to things it wouldn't normally commit to when asked by
> someone else. Our lawyer would not be able to, for example, analyse a
> business model and say whether it is compatible with the license or it
> isn't; there will not be a seal of "OSMF lawyer approved business model"
> that corporate members can buy. But our lawyer can help *their* lawyer
> identify the sections of the license that might be crucial to their
> business model. Ultimately it's their call - just like for everyone else.
> Bye
> Frederik
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20160428/7f11316f/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list