[Osmf-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

[Kathleen Lu]

The fact that this sentence exists "These rights include, without
limitation, the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of
sub-licensees...." would mean to me that there is not an unlimited right to
sublicense, and, by implication, no unlimited right to assign. An unlimited
right to assign would make the sublicense limitation meaningless.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:25 AM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
wrote:

> 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/20200805/95c75ff2/attachment.htm>