Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Paul Johnson]

Send me a OSM shirt or something and I'll be happy to throw it on over my
fursuit for publicity purposes.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Greg Morgan  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:58 PM, alyssa wright 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot.
>>
>>
>> I nominate me !
>>
>
> Paul, I can see that.  However, you'd need to replace the logo with some
> sort of mappy thing and then run the image through an emoji process.  You
> get plus point because the base image is not a cat or dog!
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[alyssa wright]

There definitely has to be an emoji process!
On Feb 24, 2016 4:08 PM, "Greg Morgan"  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:58 PM, alyssa wright 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot.
>>
>>
>> I nominate me !
>>
>
> Paul, I can see that.  However, you'd need to replace the logo with some
> sort of mappy thing and then run the image through an emoji process.  You
> get plus point because the base image is not a cat or dog!
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Greg Morgan]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:58 PM, alyssa wright 
> wrote:
>
>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot.
>
>
> I nominate me !
>

Paul, I can see that.  However, you'd need to replace the logo with some
sort of mappy thing and then run the image through an emoji process.  You
get plus point because the base image is not a cat or dog!
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:58 PM, alyssa wright 
wrote:

> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot.


I nominate me !
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Paul Norman  > wrote:
> On 2016-02-22 12:38 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in this 
> process. 
> 
> The OSMF is not formally involved in the process, through the LWG or 
> otherwise.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, LWG and OSMF chose not to participate directly with the 
> law clinic and the students. Members of the LWG (Alyssa) and OSMF (Mikel, 
> Martijn) are involved in the process that OpenStreetMap US is kicking off. 
> LWG and OSMF have repeatedly been invited to participate. If other members 
> are not interested in this process, that's OK.

There were reasons why not, as has been pointed out. It’s not lack of interest 
or mysterious. If anything I think most of us want to see it happen, just under 
a fair, open and balanced process.

Best

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 2016-02-22 12:38 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in
>> this process.
>>
>
> The OSMF is not formally involved in the process, through the LWG or
> otherwise.
>

As mentioned earlier, LWG and OSMF chose not to participate directly with
the law clinic and the students. Members of the LWG (Alyssa) and OSMF
(Mikel, Martijn) are involved in the process that OpenStreetMap US is
kicking off. LWG and OSMF have repeatedly been invited to participate. If
other members are not interested in this process, that's OK.


> OpenStreetMap US is free to engage with law students to ask legal
> questions about OpenStreetMap, like any other organization. Of course, they
> need to be careful with the OpenStreetMap mark to make sure they're not
> implying the results or process is anything official.


We never claimed that results would be legally binding or "official". As
has been mentioned several times, the goal of this is to get the students
acquainted with our project, the strong, supportive community, and
hopefully get them to continue working with the community in the future.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Paul Norman]

On 2016-02-22 12:38 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved 
in this process. 


The OSMF is not formally involved in the process, through the LWG or 
otherwise.


OpenStreetMap US is free to engage with law students to ask legal 
questions about OpenStreetMap, like any other organization. Of course, 
they need to be careful with the OpenStreetMap mark to make sure they're 
not implying the results or process is anything official.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

>
> We took that to heart and pushed the minutes to our wiki page soon after
> you asked about it, but I forgot to let you and the community know that we
> did it.
>
> Our minutes are here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Minutes.
> (When we take notes we've been pushing to an internal github repository
> first so we can maintain institutional memory in one place. We are now also
> posting minutes to the OSM wiki as soon as we can.)
>
> I'm in the middle of working on our 2015 taxes, but I'll try to publish
> overall financials by March 4th and let you know. If you don't hear from
> me, please bug me.
>

Ian,
Thanks for getting these published. Would recommend reviewing best
practices for publishing minutes. I'm not a believer that discussions be
document. Instead, document motions, who made them and the outcome.
Especially read up on decision made in executive session. Actions taken in
executive sessions can come back to bite you if you don't document it
properly.

I have no problem with using github since it is well designed for change
management. If it is to be the depository of record, the approved minutes
should be open for the community to review.

Thanks for the hard work,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Ian Dees]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Alyssa,
> I will be out of the country with iffy internet service on Wed but would
> otherwise like to join the call. Would you mind if we solicit questions
> ahead of time that we could have discuss? I have two question or maybe they
> are really concerns.
>
> One of my concern is that the legal opinions I see regarding ODbL all
> focus on third party uses of the data. None of the opinions ask the
> question, what happens to OSM if we were to relax the terms of the license.
> It is as if business intelligence from a for-profit business Trumped (pun
> intended) OSM's contributors.
>

First off I want to point out that OSM US isn't engaging in any request to
change the terms of the license. Steve used a click-bait subject line about
changing the license to try and stir up controversy, but that's not our
goal. We're trying to learn more about the license and terms chosen by the
community.

Having said that, "What happens to OSM if it were to relax the terms of the
license" isn't really a question that can be answered by a lawyer, is it?
OSM would still exist, the data would still be here. It would just be
distributed under "relaxed terms". Sorry: I'm not trying to dismiss your
concern, I just don't see what you're trying to get at. Do you want to chat
at some other time before you leave so we can hammer this out?


> The second concern is how to give back to government agencies that publish
> their data with no constraints. I would love it if the agencies could use
> our data. How can that be facilitated and still protect OSM?
>

That's a great question, and something I am also worried about. It's
definitely something we can bring up.


> At the last townhall, for SOTM-US, we discussed publishing the US
> Chapter's minutes and financials. I strongly recommend you included the
> Board's commitment to publishing minutes and financials in the conversation
> with firm deadlines.
>

We took that to heart and pushed the minutes to our wiki page soon after
you asked about it, but I forgot to let you and the community know that we
did it.

Our minutes are here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Minutes.
(When we take notes we've been pushing to an internal github repository
first so we can maintain institutional memory in one place. We are now also
posting minutes to the OSM wiki as soon as we can.)

I'm in the middle of working on our 2015 taxes, but I'll try to publish
overall financials by March 4th and let you know. If you don't hear from
me, please bug me.


>
> Respectfully,
> Clifford
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:58 PM, alyssa wright 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law
>> clinic at Harvard University Law School for some cyber
>>  law research. 
>>
>> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and
>> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope
>> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography
>> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>>
>> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to
>> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall
>> 
>> next Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out
>> the blog announcement 
>> starring our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
>>
>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
>>
>> Let us know if you have any questions!
>> Best,
>> Alyssa.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Steve Coast  > wrote:
> Ian
> 
> I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the 
> original briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s 
> better, since it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the 
> same agenda.
> 
> It's pretty hard to argue about openness with "I was just emailed privately", 
> isn't it?

Well, it’s your board president emailing me privately which is a reasonable 
thing to do, just like I asked you last week to chat on the phone Ian. Usually 
you can figure stuff out better that way. :-)

My guess is you didn't read the original brief before agreeing to be the client 
for the work?

I think I’ve said all I need to, it’s all out in the open and you have other 
transparency issues to work on anyway apparently that Clifford raised.

Best

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Ian Dees]

Hi Steve,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:

> Ian
>
> I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the
> original briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s
> better, since it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the
> same agenda.
>

It's pretty hard to argue about openness with "I was just emailed
privately", isn't it? As far as documentation, I direct you to our blog
post and our wiki page. It sounds like you're fishing for something. Can
you just ask for it instead of trying to stir up controversy?


> Also, I’m on the LWG and I saw the emails to the OSMF so I’ve seen all
> that too. If anything, it makes it more worrying. All of this has been
> brought up privately, it’s not new. You’re kind of skipping over why this
> isn’t a LWG or OSMF project. Can we not pretend that there was no feedback
> from them that was ignored?
>

This semester's work isn't being run through LWG because the LWG wasn't
ready to take it on this semester. OpenStreetMap US was happy to work with
the law clinic so that the law students and the organization around them
can get acquainted with the OpenStreetMap community. LWG and OSMF (and the
entire OSM community) have all been invited to participate this semester
via this mailing list, our blog post, and the town hall. Ideally, we would
like to see the LWG take over being the point of contact when they're ready
– perhaps with the next round of students?


> This project would be great if some combination of the following happened:
>
> a) the LWG ran it
> b) the process to design the work we need was open (instead of sharing the
> results in the spring)
> c) other companies and the community were involved, actively
> d) we could also attract independent lawyers, since in the end we need
> real opinion anyway
>
> I don’t think any of that is happening, which is a shame.
>

The process is open and other companies and community members are involved.
I'm hoping that this process will attract other lawyers to participate and
contribute to OSM. Right now, we're focused on this particular law clinic
and the students that are part of it.


> I think what’s happening, and I’m happy to be wrong, is that this is off
> and secret to make sure it doesn’t get overrun by crazy people on the
> mailing list. And that’s a legitimate concern. But the way it’s happening
> is to exclude everyone else too.
>

I disagree. See above.


> If the original briefing document is to be kept secret then whatever the
> new briefing is should be documented and open. This is fairly basic stuff,
> and it’s why, as far as I can tell, the OSMF and LWG didn’t get involved.
>

If I'm understanding what you mean by "original briefing document", as I
mentioned before it is not secret, it is posted on the wiki page here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
.


> This really has the potential to be a great project of obvious benefit,
> but only if it’s open.
>

I'm glad we agree!


>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I assure you that there is nothing secret about this process, its
> intentions, or the result. If you read the blog post (0) and the wiki page
> (1) that Alyssa posted you will find as much information as we have right
> now. Heck, you can even come talk to us face to face at the town hall and
> ask us questions there. We will continue to post about our progress and I'm
> sure we'll have at least one more town hall in the future.
>
> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in
> this process.
>
> (0) https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/
> (1)
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
> On Feb 21, 2016 18:16, "Steve Coast"  wrote:
>
>> It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still
>> secret - brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.
>>
>> Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real
>> lawyers, instead of secret agendas pushed via students.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law
>> clinic at Harvard University Law School for some cyber
>>  law research. 
>>
>> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and
>> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope
>> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography
>> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>>
>> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to
>> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall
>> 

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[alyssa wright]

Also, I believe I linked to the document you're referring to in the wiki 
announcement? I could be confusing documents here... apologies if I am. 

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:
> 
> Ian
> 
> I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the 
> original briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s 
> better, since it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the 
> same agenda.
> 
> Also, I’m on the LWG and I saw the emails to the OSMF so I’ve seen all that 
> too. If anything, it makes it more worrying. All of this has been brought up 
> privately, it’s not new. You’re kind of skipping over why this isn’t a LWG or 
> OSMF project. Can we not pretend that there was no feedback from them that 
> was ignored?
> 
> This project would be great if some combination of the following happened:
> 
> a) the LWG ran it
> b) the process to design the work we need was open (instead of sharing the 
> results in the spring)
> c) other companies and the community were involved, actively
> d) we could also attract independent lawyers, since in the end we need real 
> opinion anyway
> 
> I don’t think any of that is happening, which is a shame.
> 
> I think what’s happening, and I’m happy to be wrong, is that this is off and 
> secret to make sure it doesn’t get overrun by crazy people on the mailing 
> list. And that’s a legitimate concern. But the way it’s happening is to 
> exclude everyone else too.
> 
> If the original briefing document is to be kept secret then whatever the new 
> briefing is should be documented and open. This is fairly basic stuff, and 
> it’s why, as far as I can tell, the OSMF and LWG didn’t get involved.
> 
> This really has the potential to be a great project of obvious benefit, but 
> only if it’s open.
> 
> Best
> 
> Steve
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Steve,
>> 
>> I assure you that there is nothing secret about this process, its 
>> intentions, or the result. If you read the blog post (0) and the wiki page 
>> (1) that Alyssa posted you will find as much information as we have right 
>> now. Heck, you can even come talk to us face to face at the town hall and 
>> ask us questions there. We will continue to post about our progress and I'm 
>> sure we'll have at least one more town hall in the future.
>> 
>> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in this 
>> process.
>> 
>> (0) https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/
>> (1) 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
>> 
>>> On Feb 21, 2016 18:16, "Steve Coast"  wrote:
>>> It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still 
>>> secret - brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.
>>> 
>>> Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real 
>>> lawyers, instead of secret agendas pushed via students.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Steve
>>> 
>>> 
 On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright  wrote:
 
 Hi all,
 
 Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law 
 clinic at Harvard University Law School for some cyber law research. 
 
 We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and 
 perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we 
 hope is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of 
 geography and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
 
 We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to 
 learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall next Wednesday. To whet the 
 legal scholars out there you can also check out the blog announcement 
 starring our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
 
 We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
 
 Let us know if you have any questions!
 Best, 
 Alyssa. 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[alyssa wright]

Thanks Steve. Come join us for the town hall on Wednesday!

And if you have time to write a community brief as we define the student work 
that would be great. 

This was never meant to be a secret and your help in making this success is 
appreciated. 

Now have to hop on a plane. Excuse the brevity. 

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:
> 
> Ian
> 
> I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the 
> original briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s 
> better, since it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the 
> same agenda.
> 
> Also, I’m on the LWG and I saw the emails to the OSMF so I’ve seen all that 
> too. If anything, it makes it more worrying. All of this has been brought up 
> privately, it’s not new. You’re kind of skipping over why this isn’t a LWG or 
> OSMF project. Can we not pretend that there was no feedback from them that 
> was ignored?
> 
> This project would be great if some combination of the following happened:
> 
> a) the LWG ran it
> b) the process to design the work we need was open (instead of sharing the 
> results in the spring)
> c) other companies and the community were involved, actively
> d) we could also attract independent lawyers, since in the end we need real 
> opinion anyway
> 
> I don’t think any of that is happening, which is a shame.
> 
> I think what’s happening, and I’m happy to be wrong, is that this is off and 
> secret to make sure it doesn’t get overrun by crazy people on the mailing 
> list. And that’s a legitimate concern. But the way it’s happening is to 
> exclude everyone else too.
> 
> If the original briefing document is to be kept secret then whatever the new 
> briefing is should be documented and open. This is fairly basic stuff, and 
> it’s why, as far as I can tell, the OSMF and LWG didn’t get involved.
> 
> This really has the potential to be a great project of obvious benefit, but 
> only if it’s open.
> 
> Best
> 
> Steve
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Steve,
>> 
>> I assure you that there is nothing secret about this process, its 
>> intentions, or the result. If you read the blog post (0) and the wiki page 
>> (1) that Alyssa posted you will find as much information as we have right 
>> now. Heck, you can even come talk to us face to face at the town hall and 
>> ask us questions there. We will continue to post about our progress and I'm 
>> sure we'll have at least one more town hall in the future.
>> 
>> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in this 
>> process.
>> 
>> (0) https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/
>> (1) 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
>> 
>>> On Feb 21, 2016 18:16, "Steve Coast"  wrote:
>>> It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still 
>>> secret - brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.
>>> 
>>> Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real 
>>> lawyers, instead of secret agendas pushed via students.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Steve
>>> 
>>> 
 On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright  wrote:
 
 Hi all,
 
 Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law 
 clinic at Harvard University Law School for some cyber law research. 
 
 We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and 
 perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we 
 hope is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of 
 geography and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
 
 We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to 
 learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall next Wednesday. To whet the 
 legal scholars out there you can also check out the blog announcement 
 starring our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
 
 We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
 
 Let us know if you have any questions!
 Best, 
 Alyssa. 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[alyssa wright]

Thanks Clifford. We will definitely include those questions and will make sure 
to publish the group's responses. Also, I think Alex had the latest update on 
public minutes and financials. As with all our efforts with transparency this 
was not are attempt to hide anything but probably lack of time!

As for your comments Steve - the legal student work is not based on any company 
brief. This is an effort to bring legal students into our community. This isn't 
a corporate agenda. Personally I think it's about diversifying our community 
with a range of learning and expertise. Which I know is something we all 
believe in.

Please feel free to send any further questions our way. And hope to see you at 
the town hall!
Alyssa.

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> Alyssa,
> I will be out of the country with iffy internet service on Wed but would 
> otherwise like to join the call. Would you mind if we solicit questions ahead 
> of time that we could have discuss? I have two question or maybe they are 
> really concerns.
> 
> One of my concern is that the legal opinions I see regarding ODbL all focus 
> on third party uses of the data. None of the opinions ask the question, what 
> happens to OSM if we were to relax the terms of the license. It is as if 
> business intelligence from a for-profit business Trumped (pun intended) OSM's 
> contributors. 
> 
> The second concern is how to give back to government agencies that publish 
> their data with no constraints. I would love it if the agencies could use our 
> data. How can that be facilitated and still protect OSM?
> 
> At the last townhall, for SOTM-US, we discussed publishing the US Chapter's 
> minutes and financials. I strongly recommend you included the Board's 
> commitment to publishing minutes and financials in the conversation with firm 
> deadlines.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Clifford
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:58 PM, alyssa wright  
>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law clinic 
>> at Harvard University Law School for some cyber law research. 
>> 
>> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and 
>> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope 
>> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography 
>> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>> 
>> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to 
>> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall next Wednesday. To whet the 
>> legal scholars out there you can also check out the blog announcement 
>> starring our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
>> 
>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
>> 
>> Let us know if you have any questions!
>> Best, 
>> Alyssa. 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

Ian

I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the original 
briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s better, since 
it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the same agenda.

Also, I’m on the LWG and I saw the emails to the OSMF so I’ve seen all that 
too. If anything, it makes it more worrying. All of this has been brought up 
privately, it’s not new. You’re kind of skipping over why this isn’t a LWG or 
OSMF project. Can we not pretend that there was no feedback from them that was 
ignored?

This project would be great if some combination of the following happened:

a) the LWG ran it
b) the process to design the work we need was open (instead of sharing the 
results in the spring)
c) other companies and the community were involved, actively
d) we could also attract independent lawyers, since in the end we need real 
opinion anyway

I don’t think any of that is happening, which is a shame.

I think what’s happening, and I’m happy to be wrong, is that this is off and 
secret to make sure it doesn’t get overrun by crazy people on the mailing list. 
And that’s a legitimate concern. But the way it’s happening is to exclude 
everyone else too.

If the original briefing document is to be kept secret then whatever the new 
briefing is should be documented and open. This is fairly basic stuff, and it’s 
why, as far as I can tell, the OSMF and LWG didn’t get involved.

This really has the potential to be a great project of obvious benefit, but 
only if it’s open.

Best

Steve

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I assure you that there is nothing secret about this process, its intentions, 
> or the result. If you read the blog post (0) and the wiki page (1) that 
> Alyssa posted you will find as much information as we have right now. Heck, 
> you can even come talk to us face to face at the town hall and ask us 
> questions there. We will continue to post about our progress and I'm sure 
> we'll have at least one more town hall in the future.
> 
> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in this 
> process.
> 
> (0) https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/ 
> 
> (1) 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
>  
> 
> On Feb 21, 2016 18:16, "Steve Coast"  > wrote:
> It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still secret 
> - brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.
> 
> Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real lawyers, 
> instead of secret agendas pushed via students.
> 
> Best
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law clinic 
>> at Harvard University Law School for some cyber 
>>  law research. 
>> 
>> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and 
>> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope 
>> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography 
>> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>> 
>> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to 
>> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall 
>>  next 
>> Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out the 
>> blog announcement  starring 
>> our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
>> 
>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
>> 
>> Let us know if you have any questions!
>> Best, 
>> Alyssa. 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
> 
> 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Clifford Snow]

Alyssa,
I will be out of the country with iffy internet service on Wed but would
otherwise like to join the call. Would you mind if we solicit questions
ahead of time that we could have discuss? I have two question or maybe they
are really concerns.

One of my concern is that the legal opinions I see regarding ODbL all focus
on third party uses of the data. None of the opinions ask the question,
what happens to OSM if we were to relax the terms of the license. It is as
if business intelligence from a for-profit business Trumped (pun intended)
OSM's contributors.

The second concern is how to give back to government agencies that publish
their data with no constraints. I would love it if the agencies could use
our data. How can that be facilitated and still protect OSM?

At the last townhall, for SOTM-US, we discussed publishing the US Chapter's
minutes and financials. I strongly recommend you included the Board's
commitment to publishing minutes and financials in the conversation with
firm deadlines.

Respectfully,
Clifford



On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:58 PM, alyssa wright 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law
> clinic at Harvard University Law School for some cyber
>  law research. 
>
> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and
> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope
> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography
> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>
> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to
> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall
> 
> next Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out
> the blog announcement 
> starring our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
>
> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
>
> Let us know if you have any questions!
> Best,
> Alyssa.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Ian Dees]

Hi Steve,

I assure you that there is nothing secret about this process, its
intentions, or the result. If you read the blog post (0) and the wiki page
(1) that Alyssa posted you will find as much information as we have right
now. Heck, you can even come talk to us face to face at the town hall and
ask us questions there. We will continue to post about our progress and I'm
sure we'll have at least one more town hall in the future.

As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in
this process.

(0) https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/
(1)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
On Feb 21, 2016 18:16, "Steve Coast"  wrote:

> It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still
> secret - brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.
>
> Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real
> lawyers, instead of secret agendas pushed via students.
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright 
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law
> clinic at Harvard University Law School for some cyber
>  law research. 
>
> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and
> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope
> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography
> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>
> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to
> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall
> 
> next Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out
> the blog announcement 
> starring our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
>
> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
>
> Let us know if you have any questions!
> Best,
> Alyssa.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still secret - 
brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.

Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real lawyers, 
instead of secret agendas pushed via students.

Best

Steve


> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law clinic 
> at Harvard University Law School for some cyber 
>  law research. 
> 
> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and 
> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope 
> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography 
> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
> 
> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to learn 
> more posthaste join us for a Town Hall 
>  next 
> Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out the 
> blog announcement  starring our 
> newly elected OSM US pet representative.
> 
> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
> 
> Let us know if you have any questions!
> Best, 
> Alyssa. 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us