[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Tom Hughes tom at compton.nu
Fri Apr 29 07:39:54 UTC 2016

On 29/04/16 07:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> They don't get a different license because of that, or more committment
> from the OSMF, and they don't get their business model vetted. But they
> get the warm fuzzy feeling that they have someone on our side who speaks
> their language. They don't buy a privilege; they buy a translation
> service that might help avoid misunderstandings between what our normal
> project members in LWG say and their legal department. -- That doesn't
> make everyone else "the plebs", especially as someone without their own
> legal department will most likely prefer to talk to LWG than to talk to
> our lawyer ;)

Whilst they may not technically get a different license, if anything 
ever came to court then any "interpretation" or "translation" this 
lawyer had given them would likely be admissible as indicating our 
intent and hence in effect become a binding part of the license.

Legally speaking the doctrine of estoppel could be asserted - likely 
either promissory or equitable estoppel - whereby one party makes some 
sort of promise or representation and the other party then relies on 
that. The party making the representation is then prevented from trying 
to go back on that even if the legal position beforehand would have been 
on their side.

Now that's fine if we really are intending that whatever this person 
says is intended to be a definitive statement of our view of what the 
license means, but if that is the service we are proposing to offer then 
we need to be clear about that.


Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list