The way I see this is: Don't allow the term MOU make you not see The Point of this text and that is a clarification to the license terms. In plain(?) English the Finnish authority says that the OSM community is allowed to use the data _in OSM_ with the articulated clarifications because some in the community have felt that the license is problematic for using this Open Data in OSM.
Unless I misunderstand something here it seems to me that regardless of the MOU (that is most usually drafted in collaboration _and_ signed by two parties) the idea here is that the Finnish authority declares one-sidedly (because OSM community is practically impossible to do 2-sided agreements with) that: If you abide to these (super-simple) rules/requirements then you are free as in free speech allowed to use the data. So, find+replace MOU with "License clarification" and perhaps -- just perhaps-- this seems better? Or am I missing something (again)? Cheers, -Jaakko -- jaa...@helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154 * http://go.hel.cc/MyProfile On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: > > From: Pekka Sarkola [mailto:pekka.sark...@gispo.fi] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:03 AM > > To: OSM - talk-fi; legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > I have prepared with National Land Survey of Finland Memorandum of > > Understanding (MoU) about usage of their datasets by OpenStreetMap > > activists. Hare is current draft text for everybody to comment: > > > > ---- > > Memorandum of Understanding > > > > This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MoU") is between the > > National Land Survey of Finland (hereinafter NLSF) and OpenStreetMap > > contributors (hereinafter OSM). > > Who would this agreement be between? It can't be between OSM contributors. > It could be between NLSF and *some* OSM contributors who individually agree > to it but it can't be for all OSM contributors. > > It couldn't impose any requirements on users of NLSF or NLSF-derived data > in > OSM, including OSM contributors. > > A MOU is essentially a contract between two parties, but I don't see who > the > second party is in this case. > > A contract or MOU makes sense in some cases, like if you are purchasing > commercial imagery, but there's two clear parties then. > > I suppose you could have a data provider who didn't want to make their data > directly publically available but was willing to let people contribute it > to > OSM, but such an import might run into problems following the guidelines. > > > OSM are preparing guidelines for all OpenStreetMap data collectors on > > how to include necessary tag-information for the OpenStreetMap data > > features. > > I'm not saying this isn't important - you'd likely to do this as part of > the > import process - but does it belong in a MOU? > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk