Re: [OSM-talk] FYI: Board now requires imports list (in)compatibility with OSM CT (& will work on a template)
Am 30.11.2022 um 18:50 schrieb Minh Nguyen: .. The contributor terms in question state: This Agreement shall be governed by English law without regard to principles of conflict of law. [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/9165#Miscellaneous My understanding of what the board wants is simply that the terms that we get to utilize 3rd party data under do not conflict with the contributor terms, that is something very different than asking a 3rd party source to agree to the contributor terms. Definitely the OSMF is free to, negotiate terms that do not specify English law. Simon PS: note on the side: the ODbL doesn't specify EN law. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FYI: Board now requires imports list (in)compatibility with OSM CT (& will work on a template)
Vào lúc 06:49 2022-11-29, Simon Poole đã viết: Am 29.11.2022 um 15:30 schrieb Greg Troxel: It seems obvious that asking a US entity to enter into a contract under foreign law (and the same is almost certainly true for any government entity in any other jurisdiction) is just not going to fly. You are assuming that the OSMF would require UK law, which might or might not be the case. The contributor terms in question state: This Agreement shall be governed by English law without regard to principles of conflict of law. [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/9165#Miscellaneous -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FYI: Board now requires imports list (in)compatibility with OSM CT (& will work on a template)
On 29.11.22 16:38 Dave F wrote: If it's a licence change by OSM then how can a maintainer of a database possibly account for a future, unspecified change who's implementation was out of their control? Yes, it's about a license change by OSM. I don't think it's outlandish to assume that at least some data donors are comfortable with such terms. After all, this is something that we expect of individual contributors: The Contributor Terms which every person with an OSM account has signed grants us (meaning the OSMF board and a 2/3 majority of active contributors) the right to switch to any unspecified open license in the future. Could you expand on what you mean by 'legal text'. Is it a legally binding contract? Answering by way of example: I would expect a similar implementation to the standard waiver we ask for before we import CC-BY data: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view?resourcekey=0-PzVtHArfxvbYidpW2-AVTg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FYI: Board now requires imports list (in)compatibility with OSM CT (& will work on a template)
On 29.11.22 08:14 Simon Poole wrote: The main question is what "expect it to survive a hypothetical license change" implies. My expectation is that because of practical considerations any future licence would require downstream attribution of OSM so that the OSMF can continue to offer third party sources indirect attribution. You have a point that it seems practical to look just at the more narrow scenario of another license that requires attribution of OSM. After all, a license change is not a high-probability event in the first place, and a change to a license that doesn't require some form of attribution seems even more unlikely. So it would be useful to be able to record something like "as long as attribution is ensured" for an import's license change compatibility. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
