Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it? The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the same answers... In their original email. I wasn't quite sure of the context, thus I wrote possibly. I don't recall seeing it, but it would seem strange position to take since OSM data is used commercially by themselves... Finally, I think the most honest step forward for NearMap and us unless they show some compromise on things like past data is to just shut it off. Believe me, there are a lot of other aerial imagery options being pursued hard and NearMap aren't the be all and end all. If they don't want to play ball and want to place restrictions on OSM, lets just work on alternatives. Personally I don't think Nearmap is being unreasonable, I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I don't personally feel is very cool. I don't think the CTs holding us hostage to possible but others keep telling me are unlikely futures is reasonable... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think we're all at fault here because when NearMap images became availalbe for tracing, the whole license change process was already in motion and the This is a symptom of a much larger problem in OSM, I wasted time asking for an opinion on the legal list in the past about stuff to do and all I got was conflicting opinions, no one can get a straight answer on simple things, and when it comes to much bigger issues all hell breaks loose. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, which can't be quoted directly. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:43 PM, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 06:40, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, which can't be quoted directly. Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give advice. I said we have to take it on good faith the original intent is conveyed, because it's someone's interpretation of what was said, rather than a direct quote. Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't know. Stop quoting things out of context, neither OSM-F nor Nearmap gave anything but interpretations of what was said, yet it's ok in your opinion to question what they've said as being accurate but not OSM-F. Where did I question it's accuracy? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote: Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't know. If I, as a company director, in Australia, receive legal advice obtained for that company, I can share it with the entire Board, and then the Board makes the decision on with whom the advice is shared. The lawyers do not get to decide with whom the advice is shared. When assessing legal advice consider Who asked for it What questions were actually asked and what the objectives of obtaining the advice were for example Board member AB seeks legal advice on removing Board Chair BC from office will produce a different result to Board Chair seeking legal advice on Board member AB's plan to unseat the Chair ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:51 PM, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 06:48, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Where did I question it's accuracy? You said ... Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it? That's not me questioning their accuracy. You were saying that I couldn't discuss the opinion with NearMap as it was their lawyers opinion, I was saying I could, because it's them who employed them, repeated it and went along with it. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 19 August 2010 22:05, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I don't personally feel is very cool. That's just another words to say not linking the new lincese + CT is uncool, right? There are many more people who have issues with the new CTs (me included) and don't want their past data under the CTs, same goes for NearMap. It's not trying to steer OSM, this was just NearMap's answer to the question do you agree to CTs + ODbL. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. As mentioned ODbL is probably the future but the process to get there sketched by LWG is Just Wrong ;) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, which can't be quoted directly. Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give advice. Steve, could you please share with us a copy of the brief that you provided to WSGR when you engaged them? It would help greatly if we all knew what terms of reference they were given when they were employed by OSMF. I think you were still on the board when we did it, and you have a copy of the agreement they sent? I can't immediately find a copy. I have a copy of their standard Letter of Engagement. What I'm asking for is details of the instructions you gave to them when you engaged them. I'm sure they will have records of this if you don't have a record of your first meeting with them. You might also want to disclose any subsequent instructions that you have given them. 80n I don't think I specifically engaged them for a start, it would be OSMF and the LWG. Any engagement as far as I know would be the LWG asking them questions, so you'd have to check the minutes and ask them. Matt has been the point of contact and sent all the emails to WSGR cc: the LWG. I don't think the OSMF had any specific instructions other than the letter of engagement. I appreciate you're trying to make this all about me personally, and I understand you feel there is a vast conspiracy where I am at the hub, and this has something to do with CM dropping our previous lawyer. My understanding is that you feel we dropped them because they somehow disagreed with the ODbL. As far as I know CM never engaged them to look at the ODbL at all. We changed legal firm simply because they were unresponsive on the basic issues we needed done, like contracts and other stuff because the partner we were dealing with became too busy to deal with us. This is something like 2 years ago. I can't remember seeing anything from WSGR to CM on the ODbL either. That's mainly because anything we did there would have gone via Jim our CTO. My understanding is that the person at WSGR who deals with CM is different from the person who deals with the LWG for the same reason - it would be a conflict of interest. If there are any other pieces of the jigsaw I can place let me know, but I'm kind of at a loss on how to break down this attitude that it's all about me. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:33 PM, SteveC wrote: On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, which can't be quoted directly. Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give advice. Steve, could you please share with us a copy of the brief that you provided to WSGR when you engaged them? It would help greatly if we all knew what terms of reference they were given when they were employed by OSMF. I think you were still on the board when we did it, and you have a copy of the agreement they sent? I can't immediately find a copy. I have a copy of their standard Letter of Engagement. What I'm asking for is details of the instructions you gave to them when you engaged them. I'm sure they will have records of this if you don't have a record of your first meeting with them. Oh and in case you think I'm dodging this one, which wasn't my intention - my memory is that I had two meetings at WSGR. One was a informal introduction, can you help us? affair where we simply decided that they probably could. Then they sent us that engagement letter which I signed on behalf of OSMF, then there was another meeting with Clark and me at WSGR with either the OSMF or LWG on the call. I think it was the LWG, but again this is all something like 2 years ago. If you want their minutes etc then you'll have to ask the LWG. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data hostage in this way. I sure hope you've tried your best to listen to their points and explain yours, and come to an absolute impasse, before accusing them of this in a public email. Since when do you consider insisting your data remain under a ShareAlike license to be holding data hostage, anyway? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
