[OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
>> > by
>> > companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
>> > target.  The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
>> > membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent.
>>
>> they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which
>> would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd
>> *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would
>> mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three
>> out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in
>> the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow
>> over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping
>> company.
>>
> Easy enough to create fake accounts and bots to provide contributions.  The
> contributor terms do not define the term "contributor" and it would be very
> onerous to sift through 70,000 accounts to try to differentiate between real
> and fake accounts.  Not something that you'd be able to enforce very
> practically.
>
>>
>> but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an
>> adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in
>> response to community needs?
>
> You could get the contributor terms reviewed by a decent lawyer for a start,
> with a brief to look at the terms with a view to protecting the rights of
> the contributors.  If you've had any legal review what brief did you give
> them?

as you well know, we've had the contributor terms reviewed by Clark,
with the brief to look at if from OSMF's point of view and the
contributor's point of view.

so, having done that, what else do you think would be an adequate
safeguard while still allowing the license to change in response to
community needs?

>> > There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing
>> > the
>> > Contributor Terms.  They can do that at any point in the future without
>> > any
>> > kind of vote or other formality.  That's a pretty big hole in itself
>> > ....
>>
>> the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once
>> you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows
>> the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in
>> writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the
>> contributor terms for existing contributors.
>>
> So existing contributors would be denied access until they assent to the new
> Contributor Terms.  This is pretty common practice and most contributors
> would be inclined to click through without giving it much thought.  Indeed
> it's how the OSMF propose to implement these terms in the first place.

ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you
suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only
thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its
members; OSMF. this introduces other problems, which we've tried to
work around, but i'd be thrilled to hear if there are better options.

cheers,

matt