[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers
rbanick at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 11:32:43 UTC 2016
Martin — Unless I’m mistaken, the proposal is not to have the legal counsel
write our rules for us but to tell us how accurately our current license
structures reflect the realities of the communities’ wishes, and then
translate that to the legal team(s) of groups who want to work with OSM in
terms they can understand.
If an OSFM lawyer says that our legal structures have us doing X when we
want to do Y then that’s a reason to change the legal structures, not get
rid of the lawyer.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:32 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> sent from a phone
> > Il giorno 28 apr 2016, alle ore 12:19, Rihards <richlv at nakts.net> ha
> > 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 agree with those questioning the legal counsel. Imagine questions like
> "can geocoding results be considered a produced work?" (if yes the results
> would not be subject to share alike). Why would we want to decide a legal
> counsel or the board on these, rather than the community? The board is
> there to ensure that we all adhere to the rules and that the administration
> works, not to define how the data can be used or the license should be
> IMHO, if there are problems of uncertainty or ambiguity in the current
> license/system, we should rather improve the license and use the process
> that is prescribed in the CTs to do it (have active contributors vote on
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk