[Osmf-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance
Mateusz Konieczny
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Aug 5 18:25:54 UTC 2020
I am not enthusiastic about this proposal. I am not fan of elaborate lawyering, especially
as I consider likely that such attempt may explode in my face as I am not a lawyer.
Also, such eggshell/empty company created to evade liability seems to me something evil,
also when I am one evading liability.
And it would complicate everything significantly.
But...
Aug 5, 2020, 20:08 by kathleen.lu at mapbox.com:
> What would be the purpose of having two separate entities, one an IP holding entity and the other an operational one? Only as a liability shield? I see holes in this proposal:
> 1) It's not clear at all that OSMF can assign the database rights to anyone else. The Contributor Terms don't account for it. > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licence/Contributor_Terms <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licence/Contributor_Terms&uselang=vi&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop>
>
Is "to do any act that is" not including such assignment/transfer? Also, OSMF-bis may be
created to be employer, with OSMF still having database rights assigned.
> 2) Adding another entity would complicate operations, accounting, legal, and corporate registrations, at significant added cost (as a side note, OSMF is not a charity under English law, and I would very much doubt that an IP holding entity could count as a charity).
>
+1
> 3) I'm not an English lawyer, so I would want an opinion from an UK lawyer as to whether a wholly owned subsidiary would be a successful tactic under these circumstances in containing any potential liabilities. (If there's a goal besides creating a liability shield, I've missed the explanation.)
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM Mateusz Konieczny via osmf-talk <> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Aug 5, 2020, 18:16 by >> mike at teczno.com>> :
>>
>>>> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:01 AM, michael spreng <>>>> osmf at m.spreng.ch>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 05.08.20 14:14, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or the other way round, possibly you meant that by "arms-length
>>>>> organisations", that the OSMF becomes the nondescript charity that only
>>>>> has a couple of trademarks and rights, and all the operative business is
>>>>> run by the "OpenStreetMap Services Ltd." or whatever, which would be the
>>>>> organisation that can fail without tearing down the project.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was just thinking the same thing. It would feel a lot better if we
>>>> could spin employing editor developers out into another organization.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you’re describing the prior status quo here, Frederik. iD editor development was owned by a collection of loosely-aligned organizations who recently decided to halt their support, leaving OSMF in a situation that resulted in this conversation
>>>
>> The proposal seems to have OSMF holding critical assets and OSMF-bis that would fund
>> capital intensive things like software development/employ poeple etc.
>>
>> Frederik is not proposing to have this things funded directly by third-parties (status quo).
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200805/c593d6c1/attachment.htm>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list