[Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 22 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
>> I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF
>> board members, so you then can make an official statement
>> about Michael's post.
>
> I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something
> faintly amusing about the appeals to an ever-increasing authority.
>
> First you asked for a statement from LWG, and Mike duly obliged. Then you
> decided you needed one from the OSMF Chairman, and Steve duly obliged. Now
> you're asking for one from the whole OSMF Board.

I think that's a somewhat unfair summary of events. I wanted
clarification from LWG as to whether they thought OS OpenData is
compatible with the CTs. Given they are asking individual mappers to
sign these, that's not an unreasonable position to take. And their
response was a long time coming. They first ignored several emails I
sent, then only dealt with half of the question. Finally, it turned
out the difference of opinion was caused by a completely different
interpretation of what clause 2 applied to.

Given the CTs are contract is with OSMF and not LWG, and this
interpretation differs from that assumed by the only lawyers I know of
who've commented publicly on the CTs, then I don't think it's
unreasonable to ask for an official statement from OSMF as to their
interpretation. So that's what I asked for (suggesting it might come
from the chairman). Steve C said he was unable to give such an
official statement without checking with the board -- which is
therefore what I have asked him to do. That's hardly going to a higher
authority when I'm only repeating a previous unfulfilled request.

As you can see, I have made a commitment to agreeing to the CTs if
OSMF can officially confirm that their interpretation of the CTs is
what Mike wrote at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html
. I would not have made such a commitment if I didn't fully intent to
honour it. You'll also notice that I (deliberately) did not make such
a commitment previously when asking for clarification -- as it was
unclear exactly what form that clarification would take and what the
consequences would be.

That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't see
how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker