[Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
steve at asklater.com
Mon Jul 25 22:53:31 BST 2011
Was this resolved with (I believe) Henk's email?
On 7/21/2011 12:57 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> On 20 July 2011 19:32, Steve Coast<steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than
>> the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF?
> As I already explained to you off-list when you asked this before:
> It's because the CTs are a contract between myself and OSMF. What a
> third party has to say about how they're interpreted carries much less
> weight than a statement by one of the parties to the contract. If the
> CTs were an agreement between myself and LWG, then clearly an
> assurance by LWG would be sufficient. But that's not the case here.
> LWG may well be "run by the OSMF", but it is a *working group*, and
> working groups typically don't have delegated authority to act on
> behalf of / represent that main body. Indeed one of the OSMF board
> members has recently indicated that it's possible for OSMF to reject
> any particular stance taken by LWG. If that's the case, then it would
> suggest that LWG does not have the authority to act on behalf of OSMF.
> (For what it's worth, I think that's entirely appropriate. Any policy
> decisions should be passed by the elected OSMF board, even if it's
> simply a matter of approving LWG's recommendations.) However, maybe
> this isn't the case, and LWG does have the authority to speak for OSMF
> in licensing matters. In which case, a statement to that effect would
> also satisfy my concerns.
> If the OSMF board expects contributors to agree to the CTs based on an
> assurance from LWG, then why would it be a problem for them to
> publicly endorse that assurance?
More information about the Talk-GB