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

[Kai Krueger]

Richard Fairhurst 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.
> 
Well, the best reassurance would be to update the actual Contributor Terms
and to refine the wording of clause 1 and 2 that they become clear even to a
reasonably intelligent layman.

This confusion is a major aspect of the CT and has profound influences on
both current mappers of what they are allowed to add and future mappers when
they decide on the consequences of triggering the license clause. So being
absolutely clear on what clause 1 and 2 mean for data to which the OSM
mappers does not have the rights, but contributes it by the virtue of a
sub-license, warrants some effort from all involved sides.

At the moment it seems not even the intent of those clauses were clear, let
alone how and if the legal text expresses that intent. Otherwise we wouldn't
be having this discussion over and over for a long time now. As Andrzej has
said on legal-talk (
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006187.html )
I believe there have been conflicting (private) statements from member of
the LWG and OSMF Board, as to what the intent of clause 1 and 2 are and the
views seem to change over time.

So the statements of Michael and Steve are an important step forward in
getting this ambiguity resolved, but I am not sure how much value they would
have in front of court, given that both emails explicitly said they were not
representing the official view. So this is not a "appeals to an
ever-increasing authority" but simply a wish from the community to get a
clear and official statement of how this part of the legal contract is
intended to work. 

Therefore, imho updating the CT to clarify them would be the correct and
unambiguous thing to do. Second best to that would be an official and
quotable statement by the OSMF (i.e. the contract party) as to what their
intent with respect to this issue is.

Kai


--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributor-terms-tp6483857p6505718.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.