Hello A few days ago I commented
> But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a > representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on > interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one > way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. > (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring > clarity.) I have subsequently read this comment from Simon Poole, which seems to address my comment in some loose form, but not directly. And I must admit, it has only confused me further. > From a LWG pov I believe the process we are trying to go through is: > > looking at some real life use cases, determine how to model best the > workings of the ODbL in these and whatthe consequences and effects on > third party data are. Staying within the spirit of the licence and > hearing arguments from the stakeholders in doing so. > > That is very different from asking us, or a lawyer: "this is the > desired outcome, please figure out a way to make some arguments that > support it". > > The former, if you so will, is similar to proceedings of a court, > and the result is case law, the later is more a lawyer arguing the > case in front of the bench. If it is the understanding of the OSM Foundation, that the Legal Working Group in some ways functions like a Court, then there are several issues to raise about the separation of concerns, "checks and balances" if you will, in this process as we've witnessed it. * How is the composition of the Legal Working Group formed? * Is anyone on the LWG able to "sit in judgement"? * Does the LWG itself consult with legal counsel when "trying cases"? Are there any lawyers on the LWG? * How is the "spirit of the license" determined? Is this the consensus opinion of the LWG? Voted opinion of the Board? Polled opinion of OSMF members? * How are the broad range of opinions regarding intention of the ODbL balanced within the "spirit of the license"? * The OSMF itself has repeated asked lawyers to help us reach a desired outcome over the years, the result of which was the ODbL. Why did the OSMF have a desired outcome previously, but no longer has one regarding Geocoding? * Do the OSMF officers in this discussion have a desired outcome regarding Geocoding, and does that prejudice their "judgement" when "trying" this use case? * How can we manage conflict of interest in the process of deciding on ODbL use cases? Again, I think the OSMF would best serve the OSM community by considering the governance questions above, and bringing clarity and fairness to the process. Sincerely Mikel
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
