[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Rihards richlv at nakts.net
Thu Apr 28 10:19:31 UTC 2016


On 2016.04.28. 12:59, Robert Banick wrote:
> And a final thought — thanks to Kate for all the hard work and research
> pulling this together!

i'll start by joining the "thank you". a short document is usually 
result of a long work.

>     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.

i guess the sentiment of "complicate things for corporate monsters" 
comes out of the fear that companies will take over and corrupt osm. 
corrupt it not that much by destroying it, but by making it less open.
and i can relate to that fear a lot - if you, the corporate person 
reading this, would restrict or close osm in any way, i'd be gone from 
the project.
you can see this distrust daily - some mapbox customer omitting osm 
attribution is seen as "the evil mapbox", some other company hiring an 
osm developer is seen with distrust - how much of the future work will 
be closed.
and that distrust is very, very healthy. i believe the distrust, not the 
barriers, have kept osm as it is. we should remove the barriers while 
keeping the distrust.
the distrust should be polite and healthy, though. the "yearly/quarterly 
call" has already been mentioned as simply formalising (and even making 
more open) what has been happening all the time anyway.
regarding the legal counsel, as a non-lawyer i find the whole situation 
slightly strange - but that's probably all normal for the field, and 
coded in laws anyway. if somebody asks for a tech help on irc, the 
helpers don't entangle themselves in responsibility and future support. 
if there's a way to make legal help the same level, let's go for it - it 
could easily just amount to a stern voice on the phone saying "NO YOU 
CAN NOT OMIT ATTRIBUTION. YOU CAN'T BUY YOUR WAY OUT OF IT."
i can also imagine how demotivating the call for dropping the whole 
proposal must have been. let's abstain from that if we want osm to grow. 
the proposal is a great first step - let's clarify the bits already 
mentioned as being a bit too vague and move forward with it - keeping a 
close eye on any potential osm/osmf/osmf board corruption by the crops :)
-- 
  Rihards



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list