[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Robert Banick rbanick at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 09:59:40 UTC 2016

And a final thought — thanks to Kate for all the hard work and research
pulling this together!

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:44 PM Robert Banick <rbanick at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/c9a7fe1b/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list