OpenStreetMap Foundation - User contributions [en]

Operations Working Group

2025-02-16T13:38:19Z

Firefishy: Remove twitter, add Mastodon

__NOTOC__
<div style="overflow: auto; margin:2px 0;border:1px solid #9B9;background:#EFE;color:#000;padding:10px .5em;text-align:center">
[[File:OWG_potential_logo_2017.svg|frameless|left]] 
The '''Operations Working group''' is responsible for proposing the budget for, and running of the servers owned by the OpenStreetMap Foundation. 

 '''Status: Active'''

Mastodon: https://en.osm.town/@OSM_Tech 

<big>'''https://operations.osmfoundation.org'''</big> 
</div>

==Get in touch ==

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan="2" | Contact us
|-
| [mailto:operations@osmfoundation.org operations@osmfoundation.org]
| Get in touch with the whole team for general discussion.
|-
|-
|}

==Our Policies ==
* [https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/ Policies]

== What we do ==
The key priority for this group is ensuring the operation and smooth running of the XML editing API and data distribution services (planet files and diff updates). Secondary priorities include the operation of the other OSMF servers.

The main task of the Operations Working Group is the forecasting of demand and the purchasing of hardware required to meet the priorities.

Other tasks include
* Creating policies for OSMF services, such as the tile usage policy or API usage policy
* The organisation and budgeting for hosting OSMF servers

It does not concern itself with
* Authoring software to run on the services. This is left to the development community
* Day-to-day running of the servers. This is the remit of the sys admins group

== Who we are ==

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

{| class="wikitable"
!width=220px style="text-align: middle; background: light-grey;"| Members 
! width=220px style="text-align: middle; background: white;"| Former Members 
|-
| width=220px style="text-align: middle; background: white;"|
* Tom Hughes
* Grant Slater
* Paul Norman
* Hrvoje Bogner
* Guillaume Rischard (as OSMF board liaison)
|
* Sarah Hoffmann
* Matt Amos
* Brian DeRocher
* Andy Allan
* Emilie Laffray
* Radoje Stojisic
* Jon Burgess

|-
|}

== Minutes ==
* [[Working_Group_Minutes#Operations_meetings|Operations minutes]]
* [https://operations.osmfoundation.org/reports/ Current Reports]
* [https://operations.osmfoundation.org/meetings/Minutes 2010-2016]

Some minuted meetings have taken place although most decision and discussion takes place in an unscheduled manner via normal community channels.

== Historic ==
* Formerly known as the "Technical Working Group"
* [https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:OWG_Plan_2013.pdf 2013 Plan]

Incorporation

2023-12-17T18:12:01Z

Firefishy: Add EORI number

The Openstreetmap Foundation is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales at the UK [http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk Companies House].

Company Registration Number: 05912761

VAT Registration Number: GB413387210

EORI Number: GB413387210000

Address of Registered Office:
Openstreetmap Foundation,
St John’s Innovation Centre,
Cowley Road,
Cambridge,
CB4 0WS,
United Kingdom

==What is a "company limited by guarantee" ?==

We are not a formal Charity, but a non-distributing company, effectively in the second tier without many of the restrictions that apply to Charities ... which unfortunately we do not have the budget nor man-power to comply with. We cannot distribute profits and, if the OSMF ever ceases to operate, any assets such as cash in the bank would have to be transferred to another organisation with similar aims.

Officially, we are a "company limited by guarantee". This type of company does not have shareholders but "members". Members do not make any contribution to the capital during its lifetime as they do not purchase shares. The members' liability is limited to the amount that they each agree to contribute to the company's assets if it is wound up. ([http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbf1.shtml More information on companieshouse.gov.uk]).

Donate/International Bank Transfers

2022-11-01T11:44:20Z

Firefishy: "Improve" HTML to discourage bot discovery.

__NOTOC__
= Donate with a Bank Transfer =

If you want to make a one time or a recurring donation you can use the details below.

* Please remember to use the '''reference "Donation"'''.
* You are encouraged to email '''donations@openstreetmap.org''' stating the amount and date of the donation so that we can ensure that the donation is received.

==== EUR ====
Account name: OpenStreetMap Foundation Limited
Account Bank: Bank of Ireland
IBAN: IE25 BOFI 9 00033 15040822
SWIFTBIC: BOFIIE2D 
Reference: Donation [or membership]
Currency: EUR

==== USD ====
Account name: OpenStreetMap Foundation Limited
Account Bank: Bank of Ireland
IBAN: IE48 BOFI 9 01394 79780002
SWIFTBIC:  BOFIIE2D 
Reference: Donation [or membership]
Currency: USD

==== GBP ====
Account name: OpenStreetMap Foundation Limited
Account Bank: Bank of Ireland
IBAN: IE75 BOFI 9 01394 79780001
SWIFTBIC:  BOFIIE2D 
Reference: Donation [or membership]
Currency: GBP

Thank you for supporting OpenStreetMap.

''For [[Donate/PayPal|donations to our PayPal account]] we are charged a flat fee of £0.20 plus 3.4% of the amount of the donation. In many cases, it will be cheaper to make a payment directly to our bank account.''

''This page was last updated on 2021-08-31 to display our new banking details.''

Donate/International Bank Transfers

2022-11-01T11:38:19Z

Firefishy: Add initial NBSP

__NOTOC__
= Donate with a Bank Transfer =

If you want to make a one time or a recurring donation you can use the details below.

* Please remember to use the '''reference "Donation"'''.
* You are encouraged to email '''donations@openstreetmap.org''' stating the amount and date of the donation so that we can ensure that the donation is received.

==== EUR ====
Account name: OpenStreetMap Foundation Limited
Account Bank: Bank of Ireland
IBAN: IE25 BOFI 900033 15040822
SWIFTBIC: BOFIIE2D
Reference: Donation [or membership]
Currency: EUR

==== USD ====
Account name: OpenStreetMap Foundation Limited
Account Bank: Bank of Ireland
IBAN: IE48 BOFI 901394 79780002
SWIFTBIC: BOFIIE2D
Reference: Donation [or membership]
Currency: USD

==== GBP ====
Account name: OpenStreetMap Foundation Limited
Account Bank: Bank of Ireland
IBAN: IE75 BOFI 901394 79780001
SWIFTBIC: BOFIIE2D
Reference: Donation [or membership]
Currency: GBP

Thank you for supporting OpenStreetMap.

''For [[Donate/PayPal|donations to our PayPal account]] we are charged a flat fee of £0.20 plus 3.4% of the amount of the donation. In many cases, it will be cheaper to make a payment directly to our bank account.''

''This page was last updated on 2021-08-31 to display our new banking details.''

Contact

2022-07-08T07:49:12Z

Firefishy:

OpenStreetMap is an open community, and you are encouraged to get in touch via open [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels community contact channels] where your questions can be answered by many smart people, and these answers are open for others to benefit from. The OpenStreetMap Foundation has limited volunteer man-power to process enquiries, but we can be reached with the following:

{| class="wikitable"
! width=60%; style="color:black; colspan="2"| Contact us
|-
! style="vertical-align:middle; color: black; background:white"| Legal and licensing enquiries
| [mailto:legal-questions@osmfoundation.org legal-questions@osmfoundation.org]
|-
! style="color:black; background: white"| Press/Media enquiries
| [mailto:press@osmfoundation.org press@osmfoundation.org]
|-
! style="vertical-align:middle; color:black; background:white"| Map mistakes/Disputes/Vandalism
| Please read [[Data_Working_Group#I.27ve_seen_a_problem.3B_what_should_I_do.3F | I've seen a problem]]
|-
! style="vertical-align:middle; color:black; background:white"| Closing your OpenStreetMap account
| Please read [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#How_can_I_close_my_account.3F How can I close my account]
|-
! style="vertical-align:middle; color:black; background:white"| Membership enquiries for individuals
| [mailto:membership@osmfoundation.org membership@osmfoundation.org]
|-
! style="vertical-align:middle; color:black; background:white"| OSMF board, officers or individual board members
| Please read [[Officers & Board]]
|-
|}

==Mailing address==
Name & Registered Office:

OpenStreetMap Foundation 
St John’s Innovation Centre 
Cowley Road 
Cambridge 
CB4 0WS 
United Kingdom

A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales.

Company Registration Number: 05912761

VAT Number: GB413387210

Incorporation

2022-07-08T07:47:46Z

Firefishy:

The Openstreetmap Foundation is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales at the UK [http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk Companies House].

Company Registration Number: 05912761

VAT Registration Number: GB413387210

Address of Registered Office:
Openstreetmap Foundation,
St John’s Innovation Centre,
Cowley Road,
Cambridge,
CB4 0WS,
United Kingdom

==What is a "company limited by guarantee" ?==

We are not a formal Charity, but a non-distributing company, effectively in the second tier without many of the restrictions that apply to Charities ... which unfortunately we do not have the budget nor man-power to comply with. We cannot distribute profits and, if the OSMF ever ceases to operate, any assets such as cash in the bank would have to be transferred to another organisation with similar aims.

Officially, we are a "company limited by guarantee". This type of company does not have shareholders but "members". Members do not make any contribution to the capital during its lifetime as they do not purchase shares. The members' liability is limited to the amount that they each agree to contribute to the company's assets if it is wound up. ([http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbf1.shtml More information on companieshouse.gov.uk]).

Incorporation

2022-07-08T07:47:32Z

Firefishy: Add VAT number

The Openstreetmap Foundation is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales at the UK [http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk Companies House].

Company Registration Number: 05912761
VAT Registration Number: GB413387210

Address of Registered Office:
Openstreetmap Foundation,
St John’s Innovation Centre,
Cowley Road,
Cambridge,
CB4 0WS,
United Kingdom

==What is a "company limited by guarantee" ?==

We are not a formal Charity, but a non-distributing company, effectively in the second tier without many of the restrictions that apply to Charities ... which unfortunately we do not have the budget nor man-power to comply with. We cannot distribute profits and, if the OSMF ever ceases to operate, any assets such as cash in the bank would have to be transferred to another organisation with similar aims.

Officially, we are a "company limited by guarantee". This type of company does not have shareholders but "members". Members do not make any contribution to the capital during its lifetime as they do not purchase shares. The members' liability is limited to the amount that they each agree to contribute to the company's assets if it is wound up. ([http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbf1.shtml More information on companieshouse.gov.uk]).

About

2022-03-31T15:33:32Z

Firefishy:

[[About/nl|Nederlands]] [[About/fr|Français]] [[About/de|Deutsch]] [[About/es|Español]] [[About/it|Italiano]] [[About/jp|日本語]] [[About/ru|Pусский]] [[About/pt-br|Português Brasileiro]] [[About/uk|Українська]]

The OpenStreetMap Foundation is a UK-registered not-for-profit organization that supports the OpenStreetMap Project. The OpenStreetMap Project based at [http://www.OpenStreetMap.org OpenStreetMap.org], is the worldwide mapping effort that includes more than a million volunteers around the globe.

The foundation consists of [[Membership|members]] from around the world who elect its [[Officers & Board|board of directors]]

Much of the foundation’s extensive work is done in the background, yet is critical to the ongoing functioning and growth of the OpenStreetMap Project.

The foundation supports the project with several key functions:

* As a UK-registered limited company, the foundation acts as a legal entity for the OpenStreetMap Project.
* The foundation is the custodian for the computer servers and services necessary to host the OpenStreetMap project.
* Provides a vehicle for fund-raising to support the project. The foundation can accept donations for the OpenStreetMap Project and allocate those donations to OpenStreetMap Project activities.
* Organizes the annual conference, [http://stateofthemap.org/ State-of-the-map]
* Supports and communicates with the working groups, such as communications, licensing, etc. The foundation board at times will delegate various tasks to working groups, such as public relations, Web site development, etc.

OpenStreetMap is an open initiative to create and provide free map data to anyone who wants them.

== Name & Registered Office: ==

Openstreetmap Foundation 
St John’s Innovation Centre 
Cowley Road 
Cambridge 
CB4 0WS 
United Kingdom

A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales.

Company Registration Number: 05912761 
D-U-N-S® Number: 779431639

''[[Incorporation|More details of OSMF 'Incorporation']]''

About

2022-03-31T15:33:16Z

Firefishy: Add DUNS number

[[About/nl|Nederlands]] [[About/fr|Français]] [[About/de|Deutsch]] [[About/es|Español]] [[About/it|Italiano]] [[About/jp|日本語]] [[About/ru|Pусский]] [[About/pt-br|Português Brasileiro]] [[About/uk|Українська]]

The OpenStreetMap Foundation is a UK-registered not-for-profit organization that supports the OpenStreetMap Project. The OpenStreetMap Project based at [http://www.OpenStreetMap.org OpenStreetMap.org], is the worldwide mapping effort that includes more than a million volunteers around the globe.

The foundation consists of [[Membership|members]] from around the world who elect its [[Officers & Board|board of directors]]

Much of the foundation’s extensive work is done in the background, yet is critical to the ongoing functioning and growth of the OpenStreetMap Project.

The foundation supports the project with several key functions:

* As a UK-registered limited company, the foundation acts as a legal entity for the OpenStreetMap Project.
* The foundation is the custodian for the computer servers and services necessary to host the OpenStreetMap project.
* Provides a vehicle for fund-raising to support the project. The foundation can accept donations for the OpenStreetMap Project and allocate those donations to OpenStreetMap Project activities.
* Organizes the annual conference, [http://stateofthemap.org/ State-of-the-map]
* Supports and communicates with the working groups, such as communications, licensing, etc. The foundation board at times will delegate various tasks to working groups, such as public relations, Web site development, etc.

OpenStreetMap is an open initiative to create and provide free map data to anyone who wants them.

== Name & Registered Office: ==

Openstreetmap Foundation 
St John’s Innovation Centre 
Cowley Road 
Cambridge 
CB4 0WS 
United Kingdom

A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales.

Company Registration Number: 05912761
D-U-N-S® Number: 779431639

''[[Incorporation|More details of OSMF 'Incorporation']]''

Operations Working Group

2016-07-20T00:37:19Z

Firefishy: Add twitter link

One of the foundation [[Working Groups]], the '''Operations Working group''' (OWG) is a new name for the "Technical Working Group". It is responsible for proposing the budget for, and running of the servers owned by the OpenStreetMap Foundation.

The OSM Operations Team are on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech @OSM_Tech]

The key priority for this group is ensuring the operation and smooth running of the XML editing API and data distribution services (planet files and diff updates). Secondary priorities include the operation of the other OSMF servers.

The main task of the Operations Working Group is the forecasting of demand and the purchasing of hardware required to meet the priorities.

Other tasks include
* Creating policies for OSMF services, such as the tile usage policy or API usage policy
* The organisation and budgeting for hosting OSMF servers

It does not concern itself with
* Authoring software to run on the services. This is left to the development community
* Day-to-day running of the servers. This is the remit of the sys admins group
__NOTOC__
==Who we are: ==

* Tom Hughes
* Grant Slater
* Jon Burgess
* Matt Amos
* Andy Allan
* Emilie Laffray
* Sarah Hoffmann

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

==2013 Plan==

[[File:OWG_Plan_2013.pdf]]

== Contact ==
You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:operations@osmfoundation.org operations@osmfoundation.org]

== Minutes ==
See [[Working Group Minutes#Operations Working Group]]

Some minuted meetings have taken place although most decision and discussion takes place in an unscheduled manner via normal community channels

Board/Minutes/2015-06-15

2015-07-02T13:31:40Z

Firefishy: Redact Company Name for the moment.

DRAFT AGENDA for the
=OSMF Board Meeting=
Location: Mumble, Monday 15 June 2015, 7:00 PM UTC
==Participants==
===Board members===
* Kate Chapman (chair)
* Paul Norman (minutes)
* Frederik Ramm
* Henk Hoff
* Kathleen Danielson
* Dermot McNally

===Guests===

===Not Present===
* Oliver Kühn

==Administrative==

===Previous minutes===
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2015-05-09

Approved

===Circular Resolutions===

None passed since last meeting.

==Previous action items==

2015-02-16: <strike>Kathleen to let the SOTM-WG know we're defining the vision of SOTM for the OSMF</strike> (Done) 
2015-02-16: <strike>Kathleen to report back our SOTM discussion in a way that captures the nuance of what was covered and allows for continued conversation</strike> (Done) 
2015-02-16: Henk to find board members to peruse each 2015 goal 
2015-04-03: <strike>Kate to follow up on non-public matter.</strike> (Done) 
2015-04-03: Kathleen to draft advisory board proposal 
2015-05-09: Henk to have plan by next meeting for moving forwards and any costs for customizing CiviCRM 
2015-05-09: <strike>Kate to set up Loomio</strike> (Done)

===Advisory board===
Kathleen to work with Kate to have something for next meeting

===CiviCRM for Membership===
Dave Corley has left the membership WG, formerly chair
Henk spoke to Jonathan Harley at sotm-us, he was going to resume work 
Dave updated planning spreadsheet (link?)

==SOTM US signups==

Estimated 50 signups
Henk to talk to Martijn about coordinating and drafting a joint email.

See if SOTM US organizers are sending a follow-up email and if we could have something in that about joining OSMF. Probably open to it. Henk to coordinate.

==Gifts==
<blockquote>Board rules of order require that gifts or reimbursement of expenses by third parties appear in the minutes and are listed in quarterly financials.</blockquote>

OSMF Board members attended a private event at State of the Map US with US conference sponsors, and some of the US board and HOT board. This was probably under the policy limit, but is disclosed in the interests of transparency. No precise value is known.

Kate Chapman and Henk Hoff traveled at XXXXXXX's expense to meet them

===Discussion===
Need to make sure third parties offering gifts or reimbursement of expenses are aware that it will be disclosed.

Is there a way to keep disclosure vague, e.g. say a public company?

No, rules are clear.

==Publicly recording board member votes==

<blockquote>Many members are requesting that board votes have how members voted recorded for publicly minuted items.

Survey of other open data/geospatial organization practices

* Wikimedia: Records how each board member voted since 2012 (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_manual#Resolutions_and_voting)
* OpenDefinition Advisory Council: Votes are done in public
* OSGeo: Records votes in published full meeting logs

Changing this would mean changing the rules of order.

Proposed change: Change "If votes are taken, the minutes will contain a tally of votes." to "If votes are taken, the minutes will contain the board member votes."</blockquote>

===Discussion===

Not a good idea based on how community latches on to things and board's history of fighting.

People attack individual board members on the mailing list and we haven't always been cohesive.

Making the vote total provides a lot of clarity on how the disucssion went and making clear who voted what doesn't help unity.

Defer for 6 months.

Makes the board like a parliment, but it isn't one. Transparency of how decisions are made, not the result is more important.

Not happy with the idea of putting names and numbers to each vote. Recent history has shown this will turn out in not very pleasant outcomes.

===Vote===
2 for, 4 against, no abstains. Paul on record as supporting.

==Board observers==
<blockquote>This item is deferred from previous meetings, and requested by members.

People would like to either observe public portions of our meetings or listen later.

There are no technical barriers to either option.

This would not be expected to increase secretary workload.</blockquote>

Some boards have completely public meetings and some completely closed, and some in-between.

Look for a couple of items in the next weeks that can be done in a public meeting.

Intend to make next meeting public, coordinate with HOT as we’re using their mumble.

==State of the Map working group==
Kate spoke to Rob (SOTM WG chair). He disagrees that the WG should be disbanded.

Concern raised about how to get more people involved with fundraising experience.

Conversation took place Monday at Samsung/Mapzenevent with Kate, Kathleen, Randy, Alyssa.

Discussion on if full-time help (secondment or directly paid) is necessary.

portland osgeo conference is looking at needing paid staff

Proposal: The board supports Rob as chair of the SotM WG which includes enforcing the code of conduct and adding, removing and recruiting members to help make State of the Map a success.

Accepted

Kate to liaise with Rob from the board side.

==AGM 2015==

<blockquote>We need to decide when and how to hold our next AGM.

At the next election there shall be at least two retirees, one of whom is Henk and the other is one of Oliver, Dermot, or Kate. (AoA 33-34). Absent one of these three deciding to retire, it shall be randomly selected.

Additional board members may decide to retire.

Suggestion of an online-based AGM in Autumn.

===Corporate membership fee changes===
s24 of the AoAs requires that any membership fee changes be approved by a general meeting.

===Term limit for board members===
</blockquote>

Deferred, but need to start planning soon.

==Hiring paid admin help==
Deferred.

==AOB==
SOTM WG was AOB.

==Next meeting==
Private meeting in ~3 weeks, public in ~5.

==Meeting End==
1:44 PDT, 1h44m

Board/Minutes/2014-11-20

2014-11-23T02:14:01Z

Firefishy: Add IRC url http://irc.openstreetmap.org/

__NOTOC__
AGENDA for the
=OpenStreetMap Foundation Board Meeting (Telephone Conference)=
on 20 November 2014 at 19:00 GMT / 20:00 CET

DRAFT Minutes
Location: Mumble Conference, 20 November 2014 19:00 GMT / 20:00 CET

==Participants==

===Board members===
* Kate Chapman (chair from item 2 on)
* Kathleen Danielson (chair until item 2)
* Henk Hoff
* Oliver Kühn
* Dermot McNally
* Paul Norman
* Frederik Ramm (minutes)
===Guests===
* Michael Collinson (MT chair)

__TOC__

==Administrative==

===Previous minutes===

[[Board_Meeting_Minutes_2014-10-14]]

3 ok, 4 abstentions - minutes accepted

===Circular Resolutions===

Circular Resolution 2014/08 - Announce Intent to Announce EGM - was accepted on 13 November with (ultimately) 6 votes in favour. The text of the resolution is:

<blockquote>
In response to the Member Request for a General Meeting (dated November 11, 2014), it is our intent to announce a GM on November 22. The GM will be held on December 7th. (At this time we are issuing only a preliminary, non-formal announcement, and details are subject to change.)

The December 7 GM will consist of a remote voting mechanism, as well as an opportunity for members to join the meeting remotely. We intend to find a place to have an in person presence (likely in Germany), but due to short notice and the distributed nature of our membership, we understand that most attendees will not be able to attend personally.

We are notifying the membership of this now so that people have the chance to plan while we are still solidifying logistics. In addition, the membership has until the formal announcement on November 22 to organize and submit additional resolutions to be added to the December 7 GM agenda.

More details will be announced as they become available, and finalized details and agenda will be shared on November 22.
</blockquote>

==Division of labour in board==

Question raised if officers at osmfoundation email should be dropped, redirected to board email, or left unchanged. Inconclusive.

Discussion on if it would be better to do elections now, after potential GM, or after F2F. Decision taken to do elections now, but positions can be changed later.

===Secretary===
Paul elected secretary by acclamation.
Frederik continues notes for minutes for this meeting.

===Treasurer===
4 votes for Frederik
3 votes for Henk
Frederik elected new treasurer. Will be in touch with Oliver.

===Membership Secretary===
Henk to remain in the Membership Secretary position and asked to, within a reasonable timeframe, “devolve” membership management to a working group yet to be defined.
Suggested timeframe to be drawn up and sent to board by Henk.

===Chairperson===
4 votes for Kate
2 votes for Dermot
1 abstention

Kate elected new Chairperson. Takes over chairing the meeting. Thanks given to Kathleen for chairing to this point.

==Details of GM to be held in December==
Announcement must be sent on 22 Nov the latest and must include full agenda with text for resolutions.
===Discussion about need for physical place===
Henk feels that [http://irc.openstreetmap.org/ IRC] is a technical barrier to participation over popular voice and video chat programs and that a physical location give participants who can make it an advantage over remote participation.
Michael: If legal questions, email legal list. Andrew Buck has volunteered use of Mumble server.
Kate: Asking legal list is good idea.
Paul: Two days may be too little to get legal advice.

===Discussion about details of voting===
Kate to email for legal advice about question for location. Potentially use seat of company (Andy Robinson’s House) for location. Fred to talk to Andy Robinson about whether this would be possible.
Discussion about electronic means of communication:
Fred: Voice (Mumble) might be complicated for many people.
Kate, Kathleen say [http://irc.openstreetmap.org/ IRC] would be an option.
===Decision===
[http://irc.openstreetmap.org/ Use IRC as an online platform] for this. There are downsides but other options probably have even more downsides.

Paul to lead the plan to come up with the agenda for the Dec07 meeting.

http://irc.openstreetmap.org/ channel: #osmf-gm

===Action items===
Kate to talk to lawyer
Frederik to talk to Andy Robinson
Paul to create agenda

==Potential additions to GM agenda==
Dermot’s email - concerned that associate members’ voices are not heard

Dermot says that the original intent of AoA causes having 1/3rd of board step down each election might not be best served by the process at hand. Particular concern that the step-down rule in the AoA was made under the assumption that elections happen yearly and by allowing people to call elections at will, the serving time of directors would be cut short.

Mike suggests board statement on resolutions instead of adding resolutions.

Henk suggests promising at the upcoming GM to present a resolution at the next GM which has had more thought and add term limits, after consulting with associate members.

Oliver is concerned about a lack of candidates for board if term limits implemented.

Mike has found that boards taking a viewpoint on Members resolutions can backfire but individual members can still make statements.

===Decision===
Board acknowledges that the matter is a complicated one. There is agreement on that it would be desirable to have clearer rules about how long a board term actually is. But apart from that, board members have (and are entitled to) different opinions and we don’t want to force board members to “speak with one voice”.

Members will be informed via osmf-talk list that the board has decided not to take a position or add additional statements, but concentrate on executing the GM. Board members with opinions are asked to speak their mind about the upcoming vote, and this should not be viewed as an internal board conflict.

Passed by acclamation.

Kate asks if anyone is dissenting. No dissent recorded.

==F2F planning==
postponed to next meeting.

==Management Team and OSMF operations structure==
postponed - with preference to do it on mailing list.

==Chairman Emeritus role==
postpone - perhaps next meeting if required

==Any Other Business==
Paul notes that local chapter documents handed over from Simon.

Henk mentions that there was a telephone call between Simon, Henk, and Michael Collinson and a large commercial company and with discussions regarding geocoding.

Henk says he will not be making SOTM announcements or selecting a venue until after the GM for workload reasons.
Discussion about decoupling of board and working group duties.

==Meeting End==
22:05 CET
==Next meeting==
to be discussed on list/Doodle. potentially week 8-12 December after the GM.

Board/Minutes/2014-11-20

2014-11-23T02:10:17Z

Firefishy: /* Discussion about need for physical place */ ad irc link

__NOTOC__
AGENDA for the
=OpenStreetMap Foundation Board Meeting (Telephone Conference)=
on 20 November 2014 at 19:00 GMT / 20:00 CET

DRAFT Minutes
Location: Mumble Conference, 20 November 2014 19:00 GMT / 20:00 CET

==Participants==

===Board members===
* Kate Chapman (chair from item 2 on)
* Kathleen Danielson (chair until item 2)
* Henk Hoff
* Oliver Kühn
* Dermot McNally
* Paul Norman
* Frederik Ramm (minutes)
===Guests===
* Michael Collinson (MT chair)

__TOC__

==Administrative==

===Previous minutes===

[[Board_Meeting_Minutes_2014-10-14]]

3 ok, 4 abstentions - minutes accepted

===Circular Resolutions===

Circular Resolution 2014/08 - Announce Intent to Announce EGM - was accepted on 13 November with (ultimately) 6 votes in favour. The text of the resolution is:

<blockquote>
In response to the Member Request for a General Meeting (dated November 11, 2014), it is our intent to announce a GM on November 22. The GM will be held on December 7th. (At this time we are issuing only a preliminary, non-formal announcement, and details are subject to change.)

The December 7 GM will consist of a remote voting mechanism, as well as an opportunity for members to join the meeting remotely. We intend to find a place to have an in person presence (likely in Germany), but due to short notice and the distributed nature of our membership, we understand that most attendees will not be able to attend personally.

We are notifying the membership of this now so that people have the chance to plan while we are still solidifying logistics. In addition, the membership has until the formal announcement on November 22 to organize and submit additional resolutions to be added to the December 7 GM agenda.

More details will be announced as they become available, and finalized details and agenda will be shared on November 22.
</blockquote>

==Division of labour in board==

Question raised if officers at osmfoundation email should be dropped, redirected to board email, or left unchanged. Inconclusive.

Discussion on if it would be better to do elections now, after potential GM, or after F2F. Decision taken to do elections now, but positions can be changed later.

===Secretary===
Paul elected secretary by acclamation.
Frederik continues notes for minutes for this meeting.

===Treasurer===
4 votes for Frederik
3 votes for Henk
Frederik elected new treasurer. Will be in touch with Oliver.

===Membership Secretary===
Henk to remain in the Membership Secretary position and asked to, within a reasonable timeframe, “devolve” membership management to a working group yet to be defined.
Suggested timeframe to be drawn up and sent to board by Henk.

===Chairperson===
4 votes for Kate
2 votes for Dermot
1 abstention

Kate elected new Chairperson. Takes over chairing the meeting. Thanks given to Kathleen for chairing to this point.

==Details of GM to be held in December==
Announcement must be sent on 22 Nov the latest and must include full agenda with text for resolutions.
===Discussion about need for physical place===
Henk feels that [http://irc.openstreetmap.org/ IRC] is a technical barrier to participation over popular voice and video chat programs and that a physical location give participants who can make it an advantage over remote participation.
Michael: If legal questions, email legal list. Andrew Buck has volunteered use of Mumble server.
Kate: Asking legal list is good idea.
Paul: Two days may be too little to get legal advice.

===Discussion about details of voting===
Kate to email for legal advice about question for location. Potentially use seat of company (Andy Robinson’s House) for location. Fred to talk to Andy Robinson about whether this would be possible.
Discussion about electronic means of communication:
Fred: Voice (Mumble) might be complicated for many people.
Kate, Kathleen say IRC would be an option.
===Decision===
Use IRC as an online platform for this. There are downsides but other options probably have even more downsides.

Paul to lead the plan to come up with the agenda for the Dec07 meeting.

===Action items===
Kate to talk to lawyer
Frederik to talk to Andy Robinson
Paul to create agenda

==Potential additions to GM agenda==
Dermot’s email - concerned that associate members’ voices are not heard

Dermot says that the original intent of AoA causes having 1/3rd of board step down each election might not be best served by the process at hand. Particular concern that the step-down rule in the AoA was made under the assumption that elections happen yearly and by allowing people to call elections at will, the serving time of directors would be cut short.

Mike suggests board statement on resolutions instead of adding resolutions.

Henk suggests promising at the upcoming GM to present a resolution at the next GM which has had more thought and add term limits, after consulting with associate members.

Oliver is concerned about a lack of candidates for board if term limits implemented.

Mike has found that boards taking a viewpoint on Members resolutions can backfire but individual members can still make statements.

===Decision===
Board acknowledges that the matter is a complicated one. There is agreement on that it would be desirable to have clearer rules about how long a board term actually is. But apart from that, board members have (and are entitled to) different opinions and we don’t want to force board members to “speak with one voice”.

Members will be informed via osmf-talk list that the board has decided not to take a position or add additional statements, but concentrate on executing the GM. Board members with opinions are asked to speak their mind about the upcoming vote, and this should not be viewed as an internal board conflict.

Passed by acclamation.

Kate asks if anyone is dissenting. No dissent recorded.

==F2F planning==
postponed to next meeting.

==Management Team and OSMF operations structure==
postponed - with preference to do it on mailing list.

==Chairman Emeritus role==
postpone - perhaps next meeting if required

==Any Other Business==
Paul notes that local chapter documents handed over from Simon.

Henk mentions that there was a telephone call between Simon, Henk, and Michael Collinson and a large commercial company and with discussions regarding geocoding.

Henk says he will not be making SOTM announcements or selecting a venue until after the GM for workload reasons.
Discussion about decoupling of board and working group duties.

==Meeting End==
22:05 CET
==Next meeting==
to be discussed on list/Doodle. potentially week 8-12 December after the GM.

Join/PayPal

2012-10-11T15:28:37Z

Firefishy: /* Join using PayPal */ request shipping address

= Join using PayPal =

[https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&business=treasurer@openstreetmap.org&item_name=Membership%20of%20OpenStreetMap%20Foundation&amount=15.00&no_shipping=0&return=http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/NewMemberWelcome&no_note=1&tax=0&currency_code=GBP&bn=PP-DonationsBF&charset=UTF-8 Click here] to go to the PayPal site. You can pay with a '''credit card*''' or with a '''PayPal account'''.

* ''In many, but not all, countries, you can pay with an ordinary credit card. Look for this wording: '''“Don’t have a PayPal account?''' Use your credit card or bank account (where available).”''

Data Working Group

2012-09-20T13:06:07Z

Firefishy: /* Members */ Update list

==Task==
* Resolution of issues in copyright violation, disputes, vandalism, and bots, beyond the normal means of the community.
* Helping to set policy on data.
* Detecting and stopping vandalism and imports that to not comply with guidelines.

==2012 Plan==

[[File:DWGPlan2012.pdf]]

==Contact==

You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:data@osmfoundation.org data@osmfoundation.org]

==Members==
* Matt Amos (OSMF Board)
* Paul Norman
* Frederik Ramm
* Henning Scholland
* Grant Slater
* Richard Weait

==Former Members==
* Tom Hughes
* Dave Stubbs

[[Category:Working Groups]]

Operations Working Group

2011-11-09T16:21:54Z

Firefishy: Fix email

One of the foundation [[Working Groups]], the '''Operations Working group''' (OWG) is a new name for the "Technical Working Group". It is responsible for proposing the budget for, and running of the servers owned by the OpenStreetMap Foundation.

The key priority for this group is ensuring the operation and smooth running of the XML editing API and data distribution services (planet files and diff updates). Secondary priorities include the operation of the other OSMF servers.

The main task of the Operations Working Group is the forecasting of demand and the purchasing of hardware required to meet the priorities.

Other tasks include
* Creating policies for OSMF services, such as the tile usage policy or API usage policy
* The organisation and budgeting for hosting OSMF servers

It does not concern itself with
* Authoring software to run on the services. This is left to the development community
* Day-to-day running of the servers. This is the remit of the sys admins group
__NOTOC__
==Who we are: ==

* Tom Hughes
* Grant Slater
* Jon Burgess
* Matt Amos
* Andy Allan
* Emilie Laffray

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

== Contact ==
You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:operations@osmfoundation.org operations@osmfoundation.org]

== Minutes ==
See [[Working Group Minutes#Operations Working Group]]

Some minuted meetings have taken place although most decision and discussion takes place in an unscheduled manner via normal community channels

Board Member Bios

2011-09-12T08:19:39Z

Firefishy: Fix misplaced link

We have a small team of [[Officers & Board|board members]] of the foundation. Here is a bit about each of them, including declarations of any other directorships and any substantial shareholdings.

==Current Board==

'''Steve Coast''' (Director, Chairman) is the founder of OpenStreetMap. Steve has worked in many heavy lifting computing applications before co-founding a web consultancy firm with Nick Black in 2006. In 2008 this became CloudMade after investment by Sunstone Capital. Steve resigned from CloudMade in October 2010 and currently works at Bing.

----
'''Henk Hoff''' (Director) is an IT consultant with a focus on neogeography. He lives in the Netherlands. Henk discovered OSM in the spring of 2006 and is an active contributor as mapper and speaker.
He joined the OSMF board in 2008.

Other Directorships held: GlobePlotter bv

----
'''Mikel Maron''' is a software developer specializing in web mapping and collaborative tech. He’s based in San Francisco, but is not there very much. Mikel started with OpenStreetMap in 2005, is currently serving his third year on the board, and advocates free and open mapping in the developing world. Mikel is currently a co-director of Ground Truth Initiative, which has implemented Map Kibera. He is also President of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team.

* http://brainoff.com/
* http://friendfeed.com/mikelmaron

Other Directorships held: Ground Truth Initiative LLC, Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (President) 
Other substantial holdings: Ground Truth Initiative LLC

----
'''Oliver Kühn''' (Director) is co-founder of skobbler, a company building software solutions based on OpenStreetMap. He has
been working in the digital mapping industry for the last 6 years while his expertise is rather on the commercial than the technical side. He joined the OpenStreetMap Foundation in 2009 and has been elected as member of OSMF board in August 2010.

* http://www.abalakov.com

Other Directorships held: [http://www.skobbler.com skobbler GmbH, Germany] 
Other positions: None

----
'''Richard Fairhurst''' was voted to the board at the recent AGM elections.
* [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Richard User:Richard on the wiki]
* http://www.systemed.net/
----
'''Matt Amos''' was voted to the board at the recent AGM elections.
* [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Matt User:Matt on the wiki]
* http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/
----
'''Dermot McNally''' was voted to the board at the recent AGM elections.
* [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mackerski User:Mackerski on the wiki]

Working Group Minutes

2011-07-11T16:54:47Z

Firefishy: /* 2011 (latest first) */ 2011-07-05 no meeting.

__TOC__
== SOTM Working Group ==
* [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010/Organisation/Meetings State of the Map 2010 meetings]

== License Working Group ==
''Note: License Working Group minutes are first published here in draft form. They are then formally accepted at the next meeting and may be subject to change for fact and clarity until then.''

=== 2011 (latest first) ===

If a meeting hasn't happened yet, the document will be an edit copy for agenda.

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! Minutes
|-
|
|-
| (2011-07-05 - no meeting)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_122fxn8g2ck Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-06-28]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-06-21]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_120fdghcpj3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-06-14]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_118d7c65vgb Letter: License Working Group Recommendation to board regarding Phase 4 of License Change Process, 2011-05-31 (made public 2011-06-14)]

|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_119fr26kqdz Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-06-07]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_116ftq2b8g4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-05-31]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_115w7rbnrd2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-05-24]
|-
| (2011-05-17 - no meeting)
|-
| (2011-05-10 - no meeting)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_114cpxmvfgf Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-05-03]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_113gtw62wdf Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-04-26]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_112gp2s48dw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-04-12]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_111hnftg5c7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-04-05]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_110d7vzh5wq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-29]
|-
| [http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:2011-03-08_OSM_Contributor_Terms_1.2.4_FrenchTranslation.pdf FrenchTranslation of Contributor Terms 1.2.4 (diff-marked copy)]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_109hj8txbg3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-22]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_108pffw55d4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-15]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_107dm9rvzfd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-08]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_106cs6545hp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-01]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_105f53ctngm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-22]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_104cwvhfcfm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-15]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd8ngscc_18c2vj28fs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-08]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_102hs3qx546 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-01]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_102hs3qx546 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-01-25]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_101d2sqnzfg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-01-18]
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1jkS-P8yBbivdF_NGNNphH9_crEXGz6uw6s45gIuNzR4 Contributor Terms 1.2.4 release draft - clean copy]
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1jY58fD3JyNUjzmecrpNejoOt4OnfHeEM-6o8rD5hCLY Contributor Terms 1.2.4 release draft - diff-marked copy]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_100cv4n9bdj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-01-11]
|-
|}

=== 2010 (latest first) ===

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! Minutes
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU Contributor Terms 1.2.3 working draft, superceded]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_99dhp8zvdp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-12-21]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_97g4w2cvd2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-12-07]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_96cqb6ntcc Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-30]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_95fzz64mdz Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-23]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_94cdzzjbzw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-16] (draft)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb Contributor Terms 1.2 working draft, superceded]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_81272pvt54 Contributor Terms 1.1 working draft, superceded]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_91gj33xrm4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-09]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_90drx4pbhj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-02]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-26]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_88chz9rdfh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-19]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-12]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-05]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_85hpptw3g7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-28]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_84ggfp39c7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-21]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_83gvxm3xgd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-14] (Call with NearMap.)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_82db3n986v Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-07]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_80dmtqkkts Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-31]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_79c56659f6 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-24]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-17]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-10]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_74fzvpnxds Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-03]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_73f7psd6kx Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-27]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-20]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_2hnm5xwcp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-13]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_72crnwfgw8 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-06]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_71f94d67q9 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-29]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_70dwdsgnc5 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-22]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_68cqrpcjgd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-16]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-08]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_66h8j973ff Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-01]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_64gvwsr8gq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-25] (Call with Microsoft/Bing)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_63fshs97dc Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-18] (Call with Microsoft/Bing)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_61wpk8hzc2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-11]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_60fsjtgtdd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-04]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_59cw33k6f7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-04-27]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_57gfmh3dd9 Licensing Working Group Agenda, 2010-04-20 (cancelled)]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_56dcnh4229 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-04-13]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_55gtdrrc6z Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-04-06]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_54fkjc4nt7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-30]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_527cf6nvgs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-23]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_51c67mfhhg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-16]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_50dgptv9db Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-09]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_49nsn4hjch Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-02]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_46dt9pk68m Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-23]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_45gvd43sxp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-16]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_43fjg785gk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-09]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_42f9h9nrc8 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-02]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_40dcjrxmdv Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-26]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_3829k4xv3r Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-19]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_37drxtnvd4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-12]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_36gjvwc8cs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-05]
|-
|}

=== 2009 ===
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-01-22]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-02-02]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-05]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-06]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-18/19]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-25]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-01]]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2hrc3kmhf Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0gwcqkkgq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-15]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1cwx2bsd2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-21]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2fvsbvwft Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_4g9k542df Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-28]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_5c2pzbkfk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-01]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_6gpqfk8dg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-05]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_7cdbdwrc4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_8gwgz58fj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-12]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_97gj8c4hh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-15]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_10dkjm35gm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-19]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_11hbg8rwd3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-22]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_12h8pb84dn Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-26]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_13hnqxsbd5 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-02]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_14d95h6dgk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-05]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_15d8mr7qhf Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-12]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_16fpr2zxtd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-16]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_173mjk26gg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-19]
* [http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY Licensing Working Group – Contributor Terms 0.1, 2009-06-19]
* [http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM Licensing Working Group – Contributor Terms 0.2, 2009-06-??]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_19ctbd87dm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-23]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_20ghkrntgd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-26]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_21dwqk5dkg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-30]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_22gxf3z6g3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-03]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_23dj6qdhdh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-06]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0gg5p4dd7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_24fb5v7rfh Licensing Working Group Proposal Presentation to OSMF Board, 2009-07-09]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_9vsr43fch Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-14]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hnnw6tc9 Feedback from OSMF board on LWG Proposal, circa 2009-07-16]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_18snkn9f9 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-17]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_3d4mbchcd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-21]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_4dpzbckfs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_5cdbfcncj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-28]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_6fzrpsvf7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-31]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_18g542x2gt Licensing Working Group – Contributor Terms working document.]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_7gfvrtgcx Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-04]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_8c9zvzhgm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-07]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_10fkt44vds Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-14]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0ddvp7zfq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-25]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0ddvp7zfq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-25]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1fgj6p9ds Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-28]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2hfmkwxdw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-01]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0ggqxwvg9 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-04]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1hqj6kdc6 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hjw9nqch Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-11]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2dhcpgzrd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-18]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_4hssxddcb Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-23]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_5dkttfrdq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-25]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_7d7k9fwht Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-29]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_8ck5tm9gb Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-02]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_11fwp5b5hs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-06]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_10fkkpqsgn Licensing Working Group Proposal to OSMF Members working document]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_14cg6kb6fs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-09]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_15hmvfwkfd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-16]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_16cm23fthg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-20]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_18fkcds5ft Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-23]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg3p525h_04jtsdqg4 Licensing Working Group, Website Terms of Use (working document, not a final version)]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_19zcvvpwfm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-27]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr Licensing Working Group, Contributor Terms (working document, not a final version)]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_20f354b7d2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-30]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_21fxrc7ddd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-03]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_22cr6s2ngk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-06]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_23d8vm36gz Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-10]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc95mxps_5fg6mx3d5 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-13]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_26cd9kdddb Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-20]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_27d3q447gh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_28dgkdmhhq Licensing Working Group, OSM contributors change over consent wording draft, 2009-11-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_29fnv9bkdk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-27]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_30g228jpgj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-02]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_31hf7xpdf2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-04]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_32xxmtnwdp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-15]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_33cddjbpfv Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-18]

== Technical Working Group (sysadmins)==
* [[File:TWGMeetingSummary2010-08-25.pdf]]
* [[File:TWGmeetingsummary2010-11-11.pdf]]
* [[File:TWGmeetingsummary2011-01-26.pdf]]

[[Category:Minutes]][[Category:Working Groups]]

== Strategic Working Group ==

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:0.9em;"
|-
!width=60px| Abbr
!width=220px| Minutes link
!width=220px| Topics / notes
!width=50px| Draft / Approved
|-
| AoA || [[Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-07-11|11 July 2011 Minutes]]
|| Next Meeting (1800 UTC) ''AoA subcommittee'' ||
|-
| AoA || [[Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-07-04|5 July 2011 Minutes]]
|| ''AoA subcommittee'' || Draft
|-
| SWG || [[Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-07-01|1 July 2011 Minutes]] || || Draft
|-
| SWG || [[Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-06-24|24 June 2011 Minutes]] || || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-06-20|20 June 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'' || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-06-13|13 June 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'' || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-06-06|6 June 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'' || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-06-03|3 June 2011 Minutes]] || || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-27|27 May 2011 Minutes]] || || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-23|23 May 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'' || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-20|20 May 2011 Minutes]] || List Etiquette. AoA update. Front Page. || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-13|13 May 2011 Minutes]] || AoA update. List Etiquette || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-09|9 May 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'' || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-06|06 May 2011 Minutes]] || Continue page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-2|2 May 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'' || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-29|29 April 2011 Minutes]] || SWG attendance. Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-25|25 April 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'' ||
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-22|22 April 2011 Minutes]] || SWG functions. Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-18|18 April 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-15|15 April 2011 Minutes]] || Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee ||
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-12|12 April 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-08|08 April 2011 Minutes]] || Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee ||
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-04|04 April 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. || Meeting was not held
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-01|01 April 2011 Minutes]] || Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee || {{Accepted}}
|-
| AoA || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-28|28 March 2011 Minutes]] || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-25|25 March 2011 Minutes]] || Articles of Association. || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-18|18 March 2011 Minutes]] || SWG membership. Articles of Association. || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-11|11 March 2011 Minutes]] || Routing. OSM.org front page || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-04|04 March 2011 Minutes]] || Routing policy discussion || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-25|25 February 2011 Minutes]] || Tile policy feedback from board, SWG attendance, Wikimapia discussion || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-18|18 February 2011 Minutes]] || Continue Budgeting and Routing policy discussion, Wikimapia discussion || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-11|11 February 2011 Minutes]] || Final review of tile policy, continue Budgeting and Routing policy discussion, || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-04|04 February 2011 Minutes]] || Budgeting, Tile policy, Routing || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-27|27 January 2011 Minutes]] || Formalize SWG || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-20|20 January 2011 Minutes]] || || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-13|13 January 2011 Minutes]] || Budgeting process || provisionally {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-06|06 January 2011 Minutes]] || Budgeting process || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-16|16 Dec 2010 Minutes]] || || Non-quorate No minutes
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-08|08 Dec 2010 Minutes]] || || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-02|02 Dec 2010 Minutes]] || || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-25|25 Nov 2010 Minutes]] || Tile hosting || {{Accepted}}
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-11|11 Nov 2010 Minutes]] || Hosting services || -
|-
| SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-04|04 Nov 2010 Minutes]] || Policy re: additional tile layers on osm.org || Draft
|}

== Communication Working Group ==

Minutes for meetings of the [[Communication Working Group]] in reverse chronological order:
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1NyYGs-wYmMqxjkY087avK_8tmuyif0-jRGfXnvLhbkg 2011-06-27] (draft)
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1vu48aIA7NkGHeh1RwWFihzDDXMDWtydgEQ1saH35xiY 2011-06-20]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1oBq2Iu3mScsKcwHezEJGz6Wt9HX-KCFhu6TvBwsf5Rk 2011-06-13]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1D-HAs9P-toVG4N2S2hc_rTdbux3H96pDJaSoypQ3MuE 2011-06-06]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1KFONXuGHczSV1Us0J_YiFXg-3ot_7iGCDBuCmMn3KVU 2011-05-23]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1I4uUfkjvRSsyQ_0UwZS6V6gmOicxAyYTlnsGQMR5ipM 2011-05-16]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1PBu9IpkVlp3M-bEOaatyetp7BfnK2gDShYEf6nGpoak 2011-05-09]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Cm_CDzMedEri8dUns17RPd3Cdw8Hl4tfPkaLvk8--cU 2011-05-02]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1V0L-V3rfvEEFolh0PBg_QhPldx0zXa1nx_cUStUk5sM 2011-04-25]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1r4-8qiST0P4cvs2Xvfk6hOt1hZBCSWqrWqcb_6yV-3g 2011-04-11]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=12DX_ZMwM9X_rnaMRp71d3zaug2n2R59E0BQbgajOM-o 2011-04-04]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1qMDjOkT7mJAn7mFF6yzUTS_KsIYAXH4uIRYnUpQtbSI 2011-03-28]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lJZXLgCZLl_dJgvtbqc3f3y9DywKGkFQz-Swr0SS62s 2011-03-21]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1fov4luj8lV9g_iReGQNAdMMWDP6hMzlm-bfmIcorzjY 2011-03-07]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1grmQMrOYP4NEgH79qiWofIiO_Z5uD-YGGU5u4wnkG-w 2010-12-13]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Bpim7FeMuER6YhoEitNXj60eCzS7NkzI9LwH9iFMI_A 2010-12-06]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1mnT-DaZVrjdhrwxCjZvPm0wLDsvgExKhav4c5sQ7dqc 2010-11-29]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=11qaYQt-7rjQsRmVxJ1DSKLgWl4-XZrIyJcIXeeIEvd4 2010-11-22]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1mDsWoXowoYWVw11KrIX6TYGior0qazWtxHY5uyS4g9o 2010-11-15]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Fy8Qip03eKZR7U0ZYXNkboydLwjGugi_0FjqCUndGdI 2010-11-08]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1isUWbxKrm4EZpeVYvHA2jmUHuf1ioiTRhSP8SQjzVeE 2010-11-01]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1xuRxWKlsEp0G8irRhto6eClszGFMYSycRnzWVUJNArg 2010-10-18]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=12DLUEv_O_aKBDrabz8bWvxPl8duiyZAKZzW7pZb0Xhc 2010-10-11]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=115ymBWuAHRS3ZArgmBms6uKltGmYEYItWPAOIsFu8eM 2010-10-04]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pTP-4PJZAHgsuFtBtEVP3eB7fcEr5H5b_LnX7JfapnY 2010-09-20]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ASGBuFrNpR1BwSPAl8FHBW88EXEWac6PmymvhFCR4eg 2010-09-13]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Sn0o9M_nHhkZK9GtCuIqWs6u5Z0A9INKxTjizo_Ojps 2010-09-06]
* [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sVYyov8B0o1vRqBaFV8FmYvDCuWtQtD02XLsweploYA 2010-08-30]

Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-07-08

2011-07-08T17:41:52Z

Firefishy: /* Attendance */ Remove 1 entry.

== Attendance ==

{| class=wikitable
! IRC !! Name !! Present !! Apologies
|-
| apmon || Kai Krueger || y ||
|-
| chillly || Chris Hill || Guest ||
|-
| Eugene || Eugene Usvitsky || y ||
|-
| FakeSteveC || Fake SteveC || Guest ||
|-
| Firefishy || Grant Slater || y ||
|-
| Gnonthgol || Knut Karevoll || Guest ||
|-
| iandees || Ian Dees || Guest ||
|-
| jetthe || Jonas Tull || Guest ||
|-
| Komzpa || Darafei Praliaskouski || Guest ||
|-
| rasher || Jonas Häggqvist || Guest ||
|-
| RichardF || Richard Fairhurst || y ||
|-
| Socks || Stephen Gower || Guest ||
|-
| samlarsen || Sam Larsen || y ||
|-
| stevenfeldman || Steven Feldman || y ||
|-
| toffehoff || Henk Hoff || y ||
|-
| TomH || Tom Hughes || y ||
|-
| wonderchook || Kate Chapman || y ||
|}

== Minutes ==

[[Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-07-01|1 July 2011 Minutes]] approved

== Agenda ==
* Discussion about community feedback / decisions

* Articles of Association

* List etiquette

* Front page

== Articles of Association ==

== Discussion about community feedback / decisions ==

== Actions ==

* None

== Next weeks agenda ==

* Discussion about community feedback / decisions
* Articles of Association
* List etiquette
* Front page

== Next meeting ==

* Informal Discussion at SoTM-EU
* Next meeting 22nd July 15.00 UTC

== IRC Log ==

<pre class="forcewrap">
[16:04] <stevenfeldman> Hi, am I too early?
[16:04] <wonderchook> stevenfeldman: I don't think so
[16:04] <wonderchook> the meeting was supposed to start 4 minutes ago, right?
[16:04] <stevenfeldman> wonderchook: I love the idea of a difference island :) Is that making a difference island?
[16:04] <toffehoff> Thought so as well.
[16:05] <stevenfeldman> ok I am lurking till we kick off
[16:05] <toffehoff> Waiting for Mikel...
[16:06] * Eugene has joined #osm-strategic
[16:06] <wonderchook> stevenfeldman: ha really I should have said "Java"
[16:06] <wonderchook> and learn to type
[16:06] <wonderchook> though in July I will be on a different island every meeting
[16:06] <Eugene> Hello everyone! Sorry for being a bit late.
[16:07] <RichardF> hellooooooooooooooo
[16:07] <stevenfeldman> wonderchook: does that mean a coffee island or an open source code island?
[16:07] <apmon> Hi
[16:07] * chillly has joined #osm-strategic
[16:07] <wonderchook> stevenfeldman: or the island where a lot of coffee comes from;)
[16:08] <toffehoff> Can someone see if Mikel is online?
[16:08] <wonderchook> toffehoff: he is not
[16:09] <wonderchook> I just had a meeting with him that ended 1 hour ago, he got kicked out of the coffee shop he was in due to Shabbat
[16:09] <toffehoff> Shall we wait for him or kick off w/o him.
[16:09] * Komzpa has joined #osm-strategic
[16:09] <wonderchook> I think we should kick it off w/o him
[16:09] * rasher has joined #osm-strategic
[16:10] <toffehoff> Look like we have a lot of visitors.
[16:10] <toffehoff> Can everyone identify themselves, before we start....
[16:10] <toffehoff> And is someone willing to make today's notes....
[16:11] <TomH> hi
[16:11] * maning has joined #osm-strategic
[16:11] <Firefishy> (I've invited people from #osm and #osm-dev, the more the merrier)
[16:11] <stevenfeldman> hi
[16:11] <stevenfeldman> firefishy: certainly seems like more, we'll find out whether that makes merrier
[16:12] <toffehoff> No problem with more people, but can they all identify themselves, so we know how is online?
[16:12] <chillly> hi, what do you want to know?
[16:12] <maning> maning from ph
[16:12] * Looking up Komzpa user info...
[16:13] <apmon> We have a policy of identifying real names to go with the nick names
[16:13] * Looking up rasher user info...
[16:13] <Komzpa> miau. Komяpa, Darafei Praliaskouski, Belarus
[16:13] <chillly> k, I'm Chris Hill, from UK - here out of interest
[16:13] * Fake has joined #osm-strategic
[16:13] * Looking up Fake user info...
[16:13] <rasher> I'm rasher, rasher.dk, Jonas Häggqvist, Denmark
[16:14] <apmon> Those are then included in the minutes ( e.g. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-07-01 )
[16:14] * Fake is now known as FakeSteveC
[16:14] <FakeSteveC> Hi, I'm Fake SteveC from London. No, Colorado. No, Seattle. I forget.
[16:14] * Gnonthgol has joined #osm-strategic
[16:14] <Firefishy> FakeSteveC: not australia or was the austria?
[16:14] * Looking up Gnonthgol user info...
[16:14] <FakeSteveC> yeah I'm flying to Australia to win the guys over
[16:15] <apmon> Please, can we keep this serious?
[16:15] <Firefishy> apmon: no fun. spoil sport. OSM is /meant/ to be fun :)
[16:16] <toffehoff> Hello Gnonthgol, can you give you real name?
[16:16] * Looking up Gnonthgol user info...
[16:16] <wonderchook> unless someone can send me a beer through chat this is not counting as fun
[16:16] * Socks has joined #osm-strategic
[16:16] * Retrieving #osm-strategic modes...
[16:17] <toffehoff> Hello Socks, welcome. Can you give us you name?
[16:17] * apmon demands some new servers to make sure Firefishy has his fun...
[16:17] <Gnonthgol> toffehoff: Knut Karevoll, but people know me as Gnonthgol
[16:17] <toffehoff> In the mean time, anyone objections to last weeks minutes?
[16:17] <stevenfeldman> nope
[16:17] <apmon> seem fine to me
[16:17] <toffehoff> Thanks Knut.
[16:18] * FakeSteveC disappears in a puff of seriousness
[16:18] * FakeSteveC has quit IRC
[16:18] <wonderchook> minutes also fine with me
[16:18] <toffehoff> When no objections I think we can accept them .....
[16:18] <toffehoff> Who is going to minute today>
[16:18] <toffehoff> ?
[16:18] <Socks> toffehoff: Stephen Gower. OSM username Socks :-)
[16:18] <toffehoff> Thanks to Chrisfl_ for making last weeks minutes.
[16:19] <toffehoff> Hello Stephen.
[16:19] <toffehoff> Anyone ? (today's minutes...)
[16:20] <Firefishy> Last week's discussion for those that missed the link: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-07-01
[16:21] <toffehoff> Anyone ?
[16:21] * Firefishy votes for toffehoff
[16:21] <toffehoff> Declines.
[16:21] <toffehoff> Have too much other OSM stuff on my plate..
[16:22] <toffehoff> Interesting to see this many people, but no one voluteering to compile the minutes...
[16:23] <stevenfeldman> i've dome a good stint and am overloaded atm
[16:23] <Firefishy> I'll do it. Although my summary might suck.
[16:23] * wonderchook has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection�)
[16:24] <toffehoff> We'll help you with that :-)
[16:24] <toffehoff> Thanks Grant.
[16:24] * jetthe has joined #osm-strategic
[16:24] * wonderchook has joined #osm-strategic
[16:24] <toffehoff> Hello jetthe, can you give us you real name?
[16:24] <jetthe> Hi, Jonas Tull (OSM uname "jetthe")
[16:24] <wonderchook> I think my internet connection speaks for itself, for me doing minutes
[16:25] <wonderchook> if someone else will log I'll do the wiki part
[16:25] <toffehoff> Our main subject for today is probably the discussion / feedback of community.
[16:25] <Firefishy> Shuttle launch in 2mins.
[16:25] <apmon> Firefishy: Short summery: Endless discussions, see log below.... ;-)
[16:25] <RichardF> apmon: Please, can we keep this serious? ;)
[16:25] <apmon> We can
[16:25] <apmon> So what is on the agenda
[16:26] <toffehoff> where we ended last week :-)
[16:26] <toffehoff> Community involvement with Foundation decisions / community decisions.
[16:26] <apmon> So those are: Discussion about community feedback / decisions
[16:26] <apmon> Articles of Association
[16:26] <apmon> List etiquette
[16:26] <apmon> Front page
[16:27] <toffehoff> About AoA, it's ongoing. Nothing interesting to report.
[16:27] <apmon> I would suggest we first deal with list etiquette and AoA, as those are presumably shorter
[16:27] <toffehoff> Still planning on having a discussion durint SotM EU
[16:27] <wonderchook> sounds good apmon
[16:27] <toffehoff> List etiquette:
[16:28] <toffehoff> Richard announced the moderation to talk@
[16:28] <apmon> So far there hasn't been any reaction
[16:28] <apmon> Which is presumably a very good thing
[16:28] <toffehoff> Just one positive...
[16:29] <toffehoff> I think we can leave this for the moment.
[16:29] <apmon> +1
[16:29] <stevenfeldman> +2
[16:29] <toffehoff> Leaves community feedback / decisions and Front page.
[16:30] <toffehoff> Any preferences
[16:30] <toffehoff> ?
[16:30] <apmon> Are there concrete things to discuss / updates in either?
[16:30] <toffehoff> ... and lift of the last trip of space shuttle.
[16:30] <stevenfeldman> community feedback discussion was active last week why not continue
[16:30] <toffehoff> K
[16:31] <apmon> A short summery for the new comers:
[16:32] <apmon> The idea is to figure out ways to strengthen the tie between OSMF and the wider community
[16:32] <apmon> to ensure that decisions are made in favour of the community and not against it
[16:32] <apmon> for this OSMF needs to have better ways of "asking the community"
[16:33] <apmon> At the same time it is important for OSMF not not become inoperable or prevent the do-ocracy spirit through too much "elections" where they are not appropriate
[16:34] * iandees has joined #osm-strategic
[16:34] <apmon> So the question is: What measures are appropriate for which times and how are those determined
[16:34] <toffehoff> Hi Ian.
[16:34] <apmon> People agree with the summery?
[16:35] <iandees> morning toffehoff
[16:35] <wonderchook> yes, I agree
[16:35] <toffehoff> Last week we also discussed whether decision needed to be in favour of the community or in favour of the project.
[16:35] * maning has quit IRC (Quit: maning�)
[16:36] <wonderchook> true, so where in those bullets should we start
[16:36] <toffehoff> The issue may also lay in the expectations of the community ..... which may be too high.
[16:36] <wonderchook> well, I think some of it is the whole inherent issue with compromise. everyone has to give some
[16:37] <RichardF> and it's worth noting that the basic premise of the discussion may not be universally accepted
[16:37] <wonderchook> and with many people with many different opinions that is difficult
[16:38] <wonderchook> RichardF: the basic premise of which part of the discussion?
[16:38] <wonderchook> that the community needs to be considered more?
[16:39] <stevenfeldman> wonderchook: +1
[16:39] <RichardF> wonderchook: that there is a need to change how things are done so that "decisions are made in favour of the community and not against it"
[16:40] <wonderchook> ah okay, I agree with that statement then
[16:40] <apmon> Clearly there will always be many different opinions in such a large and diverse community (some of which may be conflicting). Which is why it is important to have mechanisms to ensure that the decisions reflect most people
[16:41] <toffehoff> .... or is the best for the project?
[16:41] <RichardF> apmon: disagree
[16:41] <RichardF> apmon: I believe decisions should be made for the future good of the project, not based on opinion polling of the current majority
[16:42] <toffehoff> If most people want to sell the data, should we be doing that?
[16:42] <RichardF> precisely
[16:43] <wonderchook> so this really more about continuity?
[16:44] <wonderchook> just meaning if hte majority changes its mind briefly
[16:44] <toffehoff> No: is the OSMF's primairy objective the community of the project ?
[16:44] <toffehoff> of = or
[16:44] <apmon> We have always said that the community is the most valuable thing of the project, the thing that nearly defines it.
[16:44] <RichardF> toffehoff: OSMF has defined objectives: "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share"
[16:45] <RichardF> that does not always mean following what the community wants
[16:45] <RichardF> we're not a charity AIUI more for convenience than out of principle, but charities _always_ follow their charitable aims, not merely what their members want
[16:45] <toffehoff> apmon: the most valuable thing of the project (not the community)
[16:45] <RichardF> parallel example - in the area I work in, the Inland Waterways Association has similar aims to OSMF's: to support the development and preservation of the waterways. It is _not_ there just to do what its members want.
[16:46] <RichardF> that can cause conflict, but it's as it should be.
[16:47] <apmon> RichardF: So who defines what is in the best interest of the project then?
[16:47] <RichardF> apmon: the far-sighted people that OSMF members elect onto the board, one would hope
[16:47] <RichardF> and, in turn, they may choose to take advice from others
[16:48] <toffehoff> The project is not some bubble in space. There are also other influences.
[16:48] <stevenfeldman> but not be forced to listen to the noisiest of the others
[16:48] <RichardF> stevenfeldman: yes, exactly
[16:49] <toffehoff> Mappers, users of data, competitors ...
[16:49] <toffehoff> When only looking at the mappers, we miss other actors ....
[16:50] * samlarsen1 has joined #osm-strategic
[16:50] <toffehoff> Hi sam.
[16:51] <samlarsen1> hi - am i late again?
[16:51] <apmon> yes
[16:51] <samlarsen1> :(
[16:51] <stevenfeldman> toffehoff: particularly the users who could become the next generation of contributors
[16:52] <toffehoff> for instance...
[16:52] <RichardF> yes. if you ask your existing users what you want, they (generally) don't tell you about the change you need. that's because they're already happy, which is why they're already users.
[16:52] <RichardF> that's why you need far-sighted people who are prepared to make controversial decisions against the will of the current majority - because it's in the long-term interest of OSM
[16:53] <RichardF> even if that does involve Steve being rude to me about Potlatch, etc. etc. etc.
[16:53] <toffehoff> I think need to define how the OSMF should consult the community (who that is) in the process of making decisions.
[16:54] <toffehoff> B/c we look at what's happing on talk@, irc, and other channels.
[16:55] <toffehoff> The community does not communicate via one channel.
[16:55] <iandees> careful when you say "the community" though ... which community do you mean? active editors? active editors that are OSMF members? consumers of the data?
[16:55] <apmon> iandees: That is part of the process. To decide who is the community
[16:56] <toffehoff> iandees: we haven't touched that subject yet :-)
[16:56] <wonderchook> well and there are communities that don't even use those channels
[16:56] <wonderchook> regionally
[16:56] <toffehoff> There you are...
[16:56] <iandees> well maybe before you talk about communicating with the community you should decide which communities you're thinking about :)
[16:57] <toffehoff> But how decides which community to consult?
[16:57] <apmon> The mappers are definitely part of the community, and we don't even know how to communicate with them
[16:57] <wonderchook> and is there a responsibility to track them down? or just decide there are a couple channels
[16:58] <wonderchook> exactly apmon
[16:58] <RichardF> though, as ever, bear in mind that there are people who "just want to map" without having to become part of any community
[16:59] <apmon> Yes, no one should be forced to have a (political) opinion
[16:59] <wonderchook> true, but we probably shouldn't screw them over if the community wants something
[16:59] <apmon> but everyone (within reason) should have the right.
[16:59] <wonderchook> also there are entire countries that don't participate in the larger community
[17:00] <wonderchook> becuase of language usually I think
[17:01] <stevenfeldman> time :)
[17:01] <wonderchook> well that is another reason
[17:01] <toffehoff> It's at the hour and we only raised more questions .... :-)
[17:01] <iandees> successful meeting!
[17:02] <toffehoff> Can we draw any conclusion?
[17:03] <apmon> Well, the first thing we would need to figure out, if there is enough support for that there is a need to improve things on this front
[17:04] <apmon> If there is no support for that and everyone would just rather keep it as it is and not bother with asking the community, then there is not much point in discussing it further
[17:04] <toffehoff> Can we define the problem we would like to resolve?
[17:05] <toffehoff> a clear problem....
[17:05] <apmon> Should there be formal means for the wider community to influence (some) decisions.
[17:05] <toffehoff> If we cannot agree on the problem, we're never going to get a solution...
[17:06] * Firefishy ends loggin in 1 min.
[17:06] <toffehoff> Or should other people (not being members of the Foundation) have a say in decisions within the Foundation?
[17:07] <toffehoff> Is that our question?
[17:07] <wonderchook> well, I think that is 1 question to discuss and answer
[17:07] <wonderchook> be a good starting point
[17:07] <apmon> "decisions within the Foundation that effect the entire project"
[17:08] <wonderchook> +1 apmon
[17:08] <toffehoff> Or is the problem that the community does not have a process how they reach a decision.
[17:08] <toffehoff> Not every decision within the project is a decision of the Foundation.
[17:09] <apmon> imho this is only about decisions made by the foundation (about the project)
[17:09] <stevenfeldman> got to go now, bye all
[17:09] <toffehoff> Bye Steven!
[17:09] * stevenfeldman has left #osm-strategic
[17:10] <apmon> So decisions not made by the foundation are outside the scope
[17:10] * Firefishy time?
[17:11] <apmon> Yes, lets end it here for the time
[17:11] <toffehoff> Think it's time.
</pre>

Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-07-08

2011-07-08T17:40:35Z

Firefishy: Created page with "== Attendance == {| class=wikitable ! IRC !! Name !! Present !! Apologies |- | apmon || Kai Krueger || y || |- | chillly || Chris Hill || Guest || |- | _chrisfl || Chris Fle..."

== Attendance ==

{| class=wikitable
! IRC !! Name !! Present !! Apologies
|-
| apmon || Kai Krueger || y ||
|-
| chillly || Chris Hill || Guest ||
|-
| _chrisfl || Chris Fleming || ||
|-
| Eugene || Eugene Usvitsky || y ||
|-
| FakeSteveC || Fake SteveC || Guest ||
|-
| Firefishy || Grant Slater || y ||
|-
| Gnonthgol || Knut Karevoll || Guest ||
|-
| iandees || Ian Dees || Guest ||
|-
| jetthe || Jonas Tull || Guest ||
|-
| Komzpa || Darafei Praliaskouski || Guest ||
|-
| rasher || Jonas Häggqvist || Guest ||
|-
| RichardF || Richard Fairhurst || y ||
|-
| Socks || Stephen Gower || Guest ||
|-
| samlarsen || Sam Larsen || y ||
|-
| stevenfeldman || Steven Feldman || y ||
|-
| toffehoff || Henk Hoff || y ||
|-
| TomH || Tom Hughes || y ||
|-
| wonderchook || Kate Chapman || y ||
|}

== Minutes ==

[[Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-07-01|1 July 2011 Minutes]] approved

== Agenda ==
* Discussion about community feedback / decisions

* Articles of Association

* List etiquette

* Front page

== Articles of Association ==

== Discussion about community feedback / decisions ==

== Actions ==

* None

== Next weeks agenda ==

* Discussion about community feedback / decisions
* Articles of Association
* List etiquette
* Front page

== Next meeting ==

* Informal Discussion at SoTM-EU
* Next meeting 22nd July 15.00 UTC

== IRC Log ==

<pre class="forcewrap">
[16:04] <stevenfeldman> Hi, am I too early?
[16:04] <wonderchook> stevenfeldman: I don't think so
[16:04] <wonderchook> the meeting was supposed to start 4 minutes ago, right?
[16:04] <stevenfeldman> wonderchook: I love the idea of a difference island :) Is that making a difference island?
[16:04] <toffehoff> Thought so as well.
[16:05] <stevenfeldman> ok I am lurking till we kick off
[16:05] <toffehoff> Waiting for Mikel...
[16:06] * Eugene has joined #osm-strategic
[16:06] <wonderchook> stevenfeldman: ha really I should have said "Java"
[16:06] <wonderchook> and learn to type
[16:06] <wonderchook> though in July I will be on a different island every meeting
[16:06] <Eugene> Hello everyone! Sorry for being a bit late.
[16:07] <RichardF> hellooooooooooooooo
[16:07] <stevenfeldman> wonderchook: does that mean a coffee island or an open source code island?
[16:07] <apmon> Hi
[16:07] * chillly has joined #osm-strategic
[16:07] <wonderchook> stevenfeldman: or the island where a lot of coffee comes from;)
[16:08] <toffehoff> Can someone see if Mikel is online?
[16:08] <wonderchook> toffehoff: he is not
[16:09] <wonderchook> I just had a meeting with him that ended 1 hour ago, he got kicked out of the coffee shop he was in due to Shabbat
[16:09] <toffehoff> Shall we wait for him or kick off w/o him.
[16:09] * Komzpa has joined #osm-strategic
[16:09] <wonderchook> I think we should kick it off w/o him
[16:09] * rasher has joined #osm-strategic
[16:10] <toffehoff> Look like we have a lot of visitors.
[16:10] <toffehoff> Can everyone identify themselves, before we start....
[16:10] <toffehoff> And is someone willing to make today's notes....
[16:11] <TomH> hi
[16:11] * maning has joined #osm-strategic
[16:11] <Firefishy> (I've invited people from #osm and #osm-dev, the more the merrier)
[16:11] <stevenfeldman> hi
[16:11] <stevenfeldman> firefishy: certainly seems like more, we'll find out whether that makes merrier
[16:12] <toffehoff> No problem with more people, but can they all identify themselves, so we know how is online?
[16:12] <chillly> hi, what do you want to know?
[16:12] <maning> maning from ph
[16:12] * Looking up Komzpa user info...
[16:13] <apmon> We have a policy of identifying real names to go with the nick names
[16:13] * Looking up rasher user info...
[16:13] <Komzpa> miau. Komяpa, Darafei Praliaskouski, Belarus
[16:13] <chillly> k, I'm Chris Hill, from UK - here out of interest
[16:13] * Fake has joined #osm-strategic
[16:13] * Looking up Fake user info...
[16:13] <rasher> I'm rasher, rasher.dk, Jonas Häggqvist, Denmark
[16:14] <apmon> Those are then included in the minutes ( e.g. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-07-01 )
[16:14] * Fake is now known as FakeSteveC
[16:14] <FakeSteveC> Hi, I'm Fake SteveC from London. No, Colorado. No, Seattle. I forget.
[16:14] * Gnonthgol has joined #osm-strategic
[16:14] <Firefishy> FakeSteveC: not australia or was the austria?
[16:14] * Looking up Gnonthgol user info...
[16:14] <FakeSteveC> yeah I'm flying to Australia to win the guys over
[16:15] <apmon> Please, can we keep this serious?
[16:15] <Firefishy> apmon: no fun. spoil sport. OSM is /meant/ to be fun :)
[16:16] <toffehoff> Hello Gnonthgol, can you give you real name?
[16:16] * Looking up Gnonthgol user info...
[16:16] <wonderchook> unless someone can send me a beer through chat this is not counting as fun
[16:16] * Socks has joined #osm-strategic
[16:16] * Retrieving #osm-strategic modes...
[16:17] <toffehoff> Hello Socks, welcome. Can you give us you name?
[16:17] * apmon demands some new servers to make sure Firefishy has his fun...
[16:17] <Gnonthgol> toffehoff: Knut Karevoll, but people know me as Gnonthgol
[16:17] <toffehoff> In the mean time, anyone objections to last weeks minutes?
[16:17] <stevenfeldman> nope
[16:17] <apmon> seem fine to me
[16:17] <toffehoff> Thanks Knut.
[16:18] * FakeSteveC disappears in a puff of seriousness
[16:18] * FakeSteveC has quit IRC
[16:18] <wonderchook> minutes also fine with me
[16:18] <toffehoff> When no objections I think we can accept them .....
[16:18] <toffehoff> Who is going to minute today>
[16:18] <toffehoff> ?
[16:18] <Socks> toffehoff: Stephen Gower. OSM username Socks :-)
[16:18] <toffehoff> Thanks to Chrisfl_ for making last weeks minutes.
[16:19] <toffehoff> Hello Stephen.
[16:19] <toffehoff> Anyone ? (today's minutes...)
[16:20] <Firefishy> Last week's discussion for those that missed the link: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-07-01
[16:21] <toffehoff> Anyone ?
[16:21] * Firefishy votes for toffehoff
[16:21] <toffehoff> Declines.
[16:21] <toffehoff> Have too much other OSM stuff on my plate..
[16:22] <toffehoff> Interesting to see this many people, but no one voluteering to compile the minutes...
[16:23] <stevenfeldman> i've dome a good stint and am overloaded atm
[16:23] <Firefishy> I'll do it. Although my summary might suck.
[16:23] * wonderchook has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection�)
[16:24] <toffehoff> We'll help you with that :-)
[16:24] <toffehoff> Thanks Grant.
[16:24] * jetthe has joined #osm-strategic
[16:24] * wonderchook has joined #osm-strategic
[16:24] <toffehoff> Hello jetthe, can you give us you real name?
[16:24] <jetthe> Hi, Jonas Tull (OSM uname "jetthe")
[16:24] <wonderchook> I think my internet connection speaks for itself, for me doing minutes
[16:25] <wonderchook> if someone else will log I'll do the wiki part
[16:25] <toffehoff> Our main subject for today is probably the discussion / feedback of community.
[16:25] <Firefishy> Shuttle launch in 2mins.
[16:25] <apmon> Firefishy: Short summery: Endless discussions, see log below.... ;-)
[16:25] <RichardF> apmon: Please, can we keep this serious? ;)
[16:25] <apmon> We can
[16:25] <apmon> So what is on the agenda
[16:26] <toffehoff> where we ended last week :-)
[16:26] <toffehoff> Community involvement with Foundation decisions / community decisions.
[16:26] <apmon> So those are: Discussion about community feedback / decisions
[16:26] <apmon> Articles of Association
[16:26] <apmon> List etiquette
[16:26] <apmon> Front page
[16:27] <toffehoff> About AoA, it's ongoing. Nothing interesting to report.
[16:27] <apmon> I would suggest we first deal with list etiquette and AoA, as those are presumably shorter
[16:27] <toffehoff> Still planning on having a discussion durint SotM EU
[16:27] <wonderchook> sounds good apmon
[16:27] <toffehoff> List etiquette:
[16:28] <toffehoff> Richard announced the moderation to talk@
[16:28] <apmon> So far there hasn't been any reaction
[16:28] <apmon> Which is presumably a very good thing
[16:28] <toffehoff> Just one positive...
[16:29] <toffehoff> I think we can leave this for the moment.
[16:29] <apmon> +1
[16:29] <stevenfeldman> +2
[16:29] <toffehoff> Leaves community feedback / decisions and Front page.
[16:30] <toffehoff> Any preferences
[16:30] <toffehoff> ?
[16:30] <apmon> Are there concrete things to discuss / updates in either?
[16:30] <toffehoff> ... and lift of the last trip of space shuttle.
[16:30] <stevenfeldman> community feedback discussion was active last week why not continue
[16:30] <toffehoff> K
[16:31] <apmon> A short summery for the new comers:
[16:32] <apmon> The idea is to figure out ways to strengthen the tie between OSMF and the wider community
[16:32] <apmon> to ensure that decisions are made in favour of the community and not against it
[16:32] <apmon> for this OSMF needs to have better ways of "asking the community"
[16:33] <apmon> At the same time it is important for OSMF not not become inoperable or prevent the do-ocracy spirit through too much "elections" where they are not appropriate
[16:34] * iandees has joined #osm-strategic
[16:34] <apmon> So the question is: What measures are appropriate for which times and how are those determined
[16:34] <toffehoff> Hi Ian.
[16:34] <apmon> People agree with the summery?
[16:35] <iandees> morning toffehoff
[16:35] <wonderchook> yes, I agree
[16:35] <toffehoff> Last week we also discussed whether decision needed to be in favour of the community or in favour of the project.
[16:35] * maning has quit IRC (Quit: maning�)
[16:36] <wonderchook> true, so where in those bullets should we start
[16:36] <toffehoff> The issue may also lay in the expectations of the community ..... which may be too high.
[16:36] <wonderchook> well, I think some of it is the whole inherent issue with compromise. everyone has to give some
[16:37] <RichardF> and it's worth noting that the basic premise of the discussion may not be universally accepted
[16:37] <wonderchook> and with many people with many different opinions that is difficult
[16:38] <wonderchook> RichardF: the basic premise of which part of the discussion?
[16:38] <wonderchook> that the community needs to be considered more?
[16:39] <stevenfeldman> wonderchook: +1
[16:39] <RichardF> wonderchook: that there is a need to change how things are done so that "decisions are made in favour of the community and not against it"
[16:40] <wonderchook> ah okay, I agree with that statement then
[16:40] <apmon> Clearly there will always be many different opinions in such a large and diverse community (some of which may be conflicting). Which is why it is important to have mechanisms to ensure that the decisions reflect most people
[16:41] <toffehoff> .... or is the best for the project?
[16:41] <RichardF> apmon: disagree
[16:41] <RichardF> apmon: I believe decisions should be made for the future good of the project, not based on opinion polling of the current majority
[16:42] <toffehoff> If most people want to sell the data, should we be doing that?
[16:42] <RichardF> precisely
[16:43] <wonderchook> so this really more about continuity?
[16:44] <wonderchook> just meaning if hte majority changes its mind briefly
[16:44] <toffehoff> No: is the OSMF's primairy objective the community of the project ?
[16:44] <toffehoff> of = or
[16:44] <apmon> We have always said that the community is the most valuable thing of the project, the thing that nearly defines it.
[16:44] <RichardF> toffehoff: OSMF has defined objectives: "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share"
[16:45] <RichardF> that does not always mean following what the community wants
[16:45] <RichardF> we're not a charity AIUI more for convenience than out of principle, but charities _always_ follow their charitable aims, not merely what their members want
[16:45] <toffehoff> apmon: the most valuable thing of the project (not the community)
[16:45] <RichardF> parallel example - in the area I work in, the Inland Waterways Association has similar aims to OSMF's: to support the development and preservation of the waterways. It is _not_ there just to do what its members want.
[16:46] <RichardF> that can cause conflict, but it's as it should be.
[16:47] <apmon> RichardF: So who defines what is in the best interest of the project then?
[16:47] <RichardF> apmon: the far-sighted people that OSMF members elect onto the board, one would hope
[16:47] <RichardF> and, in turn, they may choose to take advice from others
[16:48] <toffehoff> The project is not some bubble in space. There are also other influences.
[16:48] <stevenfeldman> but not be forced to listen to the noisiest of the others
[16:48] <RichardF> stevenfeldman: yes, exactly
[16:49] <toffehoff> Mappers, users of data, competitors ...
[16:49] <toffehoff> When only looking at the mappers, we miss other actors ....
[16:50] * samlarsen1 has joined #osm-strategic
[16:50] <toffehoff> Hi sam.
[16:51] <samlarsen1> hi - am i late again?
[16:51] <apmon> yes
[16:51] <samlarsen1> :(
[16:51] <stevenfeldman> toffehoff: particularly the users who could become the next generation of contributors
[16:52] <toffehoff> for instance...
[16:52] <RichardF> yes. if you ask your existing users what you want, they (generally) don't tell you about the change you need. that's because they're already happy, which is why they're already users.
[16:52] <RichardF> that's why you need far-sighted people who are prepared to make controversial decisions against the will of the current majority - because it's in the long-term interest of OSM
[16:53] <RichardF> even if that does involve Steve being rude to me about Potlatch, etc. etc. etc.
[16:53] <toffehoff> I think need to define how the OSMF should consult the community (who that is) in the process of making decisions.
[16:54] <toffehoff> B/c we look at what's happing on talk@, irc, and other channels.
[16:55] <toffehoff> The community does not communicate via one channel.
[16:55] <iandees> careful when you say "the community" though ... which community do you mean? active editors? active editors that are OSMF members? consumers of the data?
[16:55] <apmon> iandees: That is part of the process. To decide who is the community
[16:56] <toffehoff> iandees: we haven't touched that subject yet :-)
[16:56] <wonderchook> well and there are communities that don't even use those channels
[16:56] <wonderchook> regionally
[16:56] <toffehoff> There you are...
[16:56] <iandees> well maybe before you talk about communicating with the community you should decide which communities you're thinking about :)
[16:57] <toffehoff> But how decides which community to consult?
[16:57] <apmon> The mappers are definitely part of the community, and we don't even know how to communicate with them
[16:57] <wonderchook> and is there a responsibility to track them down? or just decide there are a couple channels
[16:58] <wonderchook> exactly apmon
[16:58] <RichardF> though, as ever, bear in mind that there are people who "just want to map" without having to become part of any community
[16:59] <apmon> Yes, no one should be forced to have a (political) opinion
[16:59] <wonderchook> true, but we probably shouldn't screw them over if the community wants something
[16:59] <apmon> but everyone (within reason) should have the right.
[16:59] <wonderchook> also there are entire countries that don't participate in the larger community
[17:00] <wonderchook> becuase of language usually I think
[17:01] <stevenfeldman> time :)
[17:01] <wonderchook> well that is another reason
[17:01] <toffehoff> It's at the hour and we only raised more questions .... :-)
[17:01] <iandees> successful meeting!
[17:02] <toffehoff> Can we draw any conclusion?
[17:03] <apmon> Well, the first thing we would need to figure out, if there is enough support for that there is a need to improve things on this front
[17:04] <apmon> If there is no support for that and everyone would just rather keep it as it is and not bother with asking the community, then there is not much point in discussing it further
[17:04] <toffehoff> Can we define the problem we would like to resolve?
[17:05] <toffehoff> a clear problem....
[17:05] <apmon> Should there be formal means for the wider community to influence (some) decisions.
[17:05] <toffehoff> If we cannot agree on the problem, we're never going to get a solution...
[17:06] * Firefishy ends loggin in 1 min.
[17:06] <toffehoff> Or should other people (not being members of the Foundation) have a say in decisions within the Foundation?
[17:07] <toffehoff> Is that our question?
[17:07] <wonderchook> well, I think that is 1 question to discuss and answer
[17:07] <wonderchook> be a good starting point
[17:07] <apmon> "decisions within the Foundation that effect the entire project"
[17:08] <wonderchook> +1 apmon
[17:08] <toffehoff> Or is the problem that the community does not have a process how they reach a decision.
[17:08] <toffehoff> Not every decision within the project is a decision of the Foundation.
[17:09] <apmon> imho this is only about decisions made by the foundation (about the project)
[17:09] <stevenfeldman> got to go now, bye all
[17:09] <toffehoff> Bye Steven!
[17:09] * stevenfeldman has left #osm-strategic
[17:10] <apmon> So decisions not made by the foundation are outside the scope
[17:10] * Firefishy time?
[17:11] <apmon> Yes, lets end it here for the time
[17:11] <toffehoff> Think it's time.
</pre>

Licence/Historic/We Are Changing The License

2011-05-26T08:56:33Z

Firefishy: Add link to OKFN

Translations: (unofficial)
* [[OSM:DE:ODbL/Wir wechseln die Lizenz|Deutsch: Wir wechseln die Lizenz]]
* [[OSM:ES:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Español: Estamos cambiando la licencia]]
* [[OSM:JA:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|日本語: 我々はライセンスを変更中です]]
* [[OSM:Pt-br:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Português do Brasil: Nós Estamos Mudando a Licença]]
* [[OSM:IT:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Italiano: Stiamo cambiando la Licenza]]
* [[OSM:Fi:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Suomi: Vaihdamme lisenssiä]]
* [[OSM:FR:ODbL/We_Are_Changing_The_License|Français: Nous changeons de licence]]
* [[OSM:Cz:ODbL/We_Are_Changing_The_License|Česky: Měníme licenci]]

= We Are Changing The License =

''OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways.''

OpenStreetMap is asking existing contributors before 2010-05-12 to re-license their contributions under new contributor terms, ( [[License/Contributor_Terms_Summary| human readable]], [[License/Contributor_Terms| full text]] ), which allows end user licensing under the [http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database License 1.0], "ODbL". For those not familiar, this page explains the basic reasons and provides links to further resources with more detail.

If you registered after 2010-05-12, you have already accepted the new terms and ODbL and need take no action.

== Mandatory Accept/Decline Began 17th April 2011 ==

If you have not already done so, '''[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_3_-_Existing_Contributor_Mandatory_Re-licensing_.28Phase_2_.2B_5_or_10_weeks.29 you need to accept or decline the new contributor terms] before you can continue editing.''' you can [http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms accept the new license and contributor terms here] or from your API user settings page at http://OpenStreetMap.org. You may have to log in first. If you click "Decline", you will still be able to continue editing until [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_4_-_CC-BY-SA_edits_no_longer_accepted._.28Phase_3_.2B_at_least_8_weeks_subject_to_critical_mass.29 Phase 4].

== What Are The Choices? ==

You can see the final draft of the page you will be presented with [[https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_0cc77vdd9 here]]

You have three choices.

* '''Agree''' You agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms, ( [[License/Contributor_Terms| full text]], [[License/Contributor_Terms_Summary| human readable]] ) including re-licensing your contributions under the ODbL. Anything that you have contributed in the past will be available forever under CC-BY-SA. This includes anything you contribute from now until the license change-over actually happens ... this needs a critical mass of folks agreeing. From the change-over the database with new contributions you make will be available under ODbL. Read on to find out about the differences between the current and new license.

* '''Agree, and I consider my contributions Public Domain''' Legally, this is the same as '''Agree'''. But it shows that you would prefer a simple license that just makes the data available to everyone without any restrictions at all. This will help define the future direction of OpenStreetMap.

* '''Decline'''. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions for use under the ODbL. (TODO: Needs revision. [[OSM:Contributor Terms Declined|Text displayed to people who decline.]])

== What about my mapping area? ==

Click [http://odbl.de OpenStreetMap ODbL acceptance by region] to see an independently-made measure of acceptance.

As of 2011-04-10, roughly 60% of OSM geodata worldwide is completely relicensable under ODbL. The least acceptance is in Poland and Australia-Oceania and over 90% in the Netherlands and Gaza.

== Why do we have a license? ==

Our goal is to provide geographic data that is free and open to all to use. To make sure that your contributions are provided free and open, and remain free and open, we have a license that says that.

== Who is behind the change? ==

The OpenStreetMap community, mainly via legal-talk@openstreetmap.org talk list, began discussing a more appropriate license in 2005. In 2007, a decision was made to keep the current Attribution/Share-Alike license format but have it specially written for use with databases. The OpenStreetMap Foundation then cooperated with the independent [http://okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] to create the Open Database License 1.0. This was released in 2009 and a vote of Foundation members overwhelming endorsed its adoption. Since May 2010 all new contributors have accepted terms allowing the use of the new license. To date, over 121,000 contributors are willing to allow their contributions to be licensed under ODbL.

== What license is being changed? ==

We want to change the current CC-BY-SA 2.0 to Open Database License (OdbL) 1.0.

The license that covers the contributed geodata (nodes, ways, relations) and the GPX traces that you upload. That is, anything that is in the Postgresql database and which we explicitly publish, like planet.osm.

Map tiles will no longer be covered, explained below.

The change does not cover the wiki which will remain CC BY-SA. It does not cover software and software source code, which are usually but not always GPL (GNU Public License).

== Why are we changing the license? ==

Our current user license is Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0. It for not designed for data and the creators of the license state, "Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases.".

The main issues for the OpenStreetMap project are:

* The current license uses only copyright law. This clearly protects creative works such as written documents, pictures and photos. It does not clearly protect data, particularly in the US.

* The current license is not written for data and databases. It is therefore very difficult to interpret. If someone uses your data in a map in a book and the map has several layers, what should be the placed under CC-BY-SA. Just the OpenStreetMap layer and any enhancements? The whole map, including any unconnected layers and markers? The whole book?

* It is difficult or impossible to ask questions about what can and cannot be done, as this means asking all the thousands of contributors individually to give their permission.

* This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway.

* It is difficult or impossible for folks to mix our data with data under other licenses.

You can read more here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable

== Have other options been considered? ==

Yes. There are three main options. Which option you personally support depends on what "free and open" means to you. We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but have it written explicitly for data.

The new Contributor Terms also contains a section that allows you or future mappers to participate in changing the license provided that you maintain an active interest.

The options:

1. Use a “Public Domain” license

Putting something in the Public Domain means letting anyone do anything they like with the data without any permissions needed and without any restrictions at all. It is not possible to do this in many countries so instead a license saying the same thing can be used. Creative Commons recommend CC0 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ . A Public Domain license has no Share-Alike provision, meaning that anyone can mix and match their own data with OpenStreetMap data without making it available for free public use. Public Domain licenses are very short and easy for anyone to understand.

A large section of the OpenStreetMap community would like to switch to a “Public Domain” license.

However, a significant proportion of contributors are vehemently opposed to this and we would like to keep the project unified. There is also a fear that large organisations could take the data and release a better product that ours. This fear may or may not be true, but if we go Public Domain, it would very difficult to reverse course.

We therefore ask you to accept a change to a license that is still Share-Alike but specifically written for databases and may better address concerns that you have. You will have the opportunity to tick a box that says you prefer "Public Domain". The new Contributor Terms also has an explicit mechanism for a 2/3 majority of active contributors to make changes to the license in the future.

2. Another Share-Alike license written for data. There isn't one. The Open Database License is the only one that is well developed. OpenStreetMap is the pioneer here.

3. Stay with the current license. Some of the community would like us to stay with the current license, arguing that the vague nature is good thing. It forces extremely strong Share-Alike provisions even if it stops many projects using our data. They also point out that ODbL is unproven, OpenStreetMap will be the first big user and that it is longer and more complexly written than the existing license.

In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a proposal to change the OpenStreetMap geodata license. 55% of eligible members voted, and 89% of those who voted have voted yes. Almost 49% of all eligible members have expressed their agreement to ODbL, and 6% have expressed their disagreement. [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000751.html Detailed results]. The community created a for and against the OdbL license during the vote here:

* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes
* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_No

== What are the main differences between the old and the new license? ==

The old license is written for creative works such as text and photos. The new license is specifically written for data and databases.

The old license attempts to protect data using copyright law only. The new license attempts to protect data using copyright law, contract law and database rights. The protection offered by each varies around the world. Database rights, for example, are applicable in Europe but not in the USA.

Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”. You can read more about what these terms mean here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License

However, there is one big Share-Alike difference between the old and new license. In the old license, if someone makes a map then they have to share the map under the same license, but they do not have to directly share any data they used to make the map. Under the new license, they can put a map under any license they like, provided that they share any data enhancements they have made to our data. The main reason for this is that maps can now be made with layers from incompatible data sources.

In the old license, any question about the license would have to be asked to thousands of contributors. Under the new license, the Foundation is allowed by you to publish the complete dataset as a single licensor. If there is doubt whether OpenStreetMap data can be used for a particular project, the Foundation can be asked if it objects or not. The Foundation has set up a process called "Community Guidelines" to make sure that contributors are consulted and can help define any response made.

== Can I trust the OpenStreetMap Foundation ? ==

The Foundation is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.", ( http://www.osmfoundation.org ).

But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with commercial interests?

* You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.

* The Foundation is not allowed to take the data and release it under a commercial license.

* If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data can be made and released by a different body.

* If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation.

Working Group Minutes

2011-05-13T14:13:35Z

Firefishy: /* 2011 (latest first) */ Add place holders.

__TOC__
== SOTM Working Group ==
* [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010/Organisation/Meetings State of the Map 2010 meetings]

== License Working Group ==
''Note: License Working Group minutes are first published here in draft form. They are then formally accepted at the next meeting and may be subject to change for fact and clarity until then.''

=== 2011 (latest first) ===

If a meeting hasn't happened yet, the document will be an edit copy for agenda.

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! Minutes
|-
| Postponed - 2011-05-10
|-
| Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-05-03 (soon)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_113gtw62wdf Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-04-26]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_112gp2s48dw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-04-12]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_111hnftg5c7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-04-05]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_110d7vzh5wq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-29]
|-
| [http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:2011-03-08_OSM_Contributor_Terms_1.2.4_FrenchTranslation.pdf FrenchTranslation of Contributor Terms 1.2.4 (diff-marked copy)]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_109hj8txbg3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-22]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_108pffw55d4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-15]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_107dm9rvzfd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-08]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_106cs6545hp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-03-01]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_105f53ctngm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-22]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_104cwvhfcfm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-15]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd8ngscc_18c2vj28fs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-08]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_102hs3qx546 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-02-01]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_102hs3qx546 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-01-25]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_101d2sqnzfg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-01-18]
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1jkS-P8yBbivdF_NGNNphH9_crEXGz6uw6s45gIuNzR4 Contributor Terms 1.2.4 release draft - clean copy]
|-
| [https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1jY58fD3JyNUjzmecrpNejoOt4OnfHeEM-6o8rD5hCLY Contributor Terms 1.2.4 release draft - diff-marked copy]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_100cv4n9bdj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2011-01-11]
|-
|}

=== 2010 (latest first) ===

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! Minutes
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU Contributor Terms 1.2.3 working draft, superceded]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_99dhp8zvdp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-12-21]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_97g4w2cvd2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-12-07]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_96cqb6ntcc Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-30]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_95fzz64mdz Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-23]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_94cdzzjbzw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-16] (draft)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb Contributor Terms 1.2 working draft, superceded]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_81272pvt54 Contributor Terms 1.1 working draft, superceded]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_91gj33xrm4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-09]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_90drx4pbhj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-11-02]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-26]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_88chz9rdfh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-19]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-12]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-10-05]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_85hpptw3g7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-28]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_84ggfp39c7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-21]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_83gvxm3xgd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-14] (Call with NearMap.)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_82db3n986v Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-09-07]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_80dmtqkkts Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-31]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_79c56659f6 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-24]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-17]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-10]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_74fzvpnxds Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-08-03]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_73f7psd6kx Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-27]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-20]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_2hnm5xwcp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-13]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_72crnwfgw8 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-07-06]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_71f94d67q9 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-29]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_70dwdsgnc5 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-22]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_68cqrpcjgd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-16]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-08]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_66h8j973ff Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-06-01]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_64gvwsr8gq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-25] (Call with Microsoft/Bing)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_63fshs97dc Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-18] (Call with Microsoft/Bing)
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_61wpk8hzc2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-11]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_60fsjtgtdd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-05-04]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_59cw33k6f7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-04-27]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_57gfmh3dd9 Licensing Working Group Agenda, 2010-04-20 (cancelled)]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_56dcnh4229 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-04-13]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_55gtdrrc6z Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-04-06]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_54fkjc4nt7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-30]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_527cf6nvgs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-23]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_51c67mfhhg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-16]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_50dgptv9db Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-09]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_49nsn4hjch Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-03-02]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_46dt9pk68m Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-23]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_45gvd43sxp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-16]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_43fjg785gk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-09]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_42f9h9nrc8 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-02-02]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_40dcjrxmdv Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-26]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_3829k4xv3r Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-19]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_37drxtnvd4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-12]
|-
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_36gjvwc8cs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2010-01-05]
|-
|}

=== 2009 ===
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-01-22]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-02-02]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-05]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-06]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-18/19]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-03-25]]
* [[/Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-01]]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2hrc3kmhf Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0gwcqkkgq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-15]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1cwx2bsd2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-21]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2fvsbvwft Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_4g9k542df Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-04-28]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_5c2pzbkfk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-01]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_6gpqfk8dg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-05]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_7cdbdwrc4 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_8gwgz58fj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-12]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_97gj8c4hh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-15]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_10dkjm35gm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-19]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_11hbg8rwd3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-22]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_12h8pb84dn Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-05-26]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_13hnqxsbd5 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-02]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_14d95h6dgk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-05]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_15d8mr7qhf Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-12]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_16fpr2zxtd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-16]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_173mjk26gg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-19]
* [http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY Licensing Working Group – Contributor Terms 0.1, 2009-06-19]
* [http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM Licensing Working Group – Contributor Terms 0.2, 2009-06-??]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_19ctbd87dm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-23]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_20ghkrntgd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-26]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_21dwqk5dkg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-06-30]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_22gxf3z6g3 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-03]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_23dj6qdhdh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-06]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0gg5p4dd7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_24fb5v7rfh Licensing Working Group Proposal Presentation to OSMF Board, 2009-07-09]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_9vsr43fch Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-14]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hnnw6tc9 Feedback from OSMF board on LWG Proposal, circa 2009-07-16]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_18snkn9f9 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-17]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_3d4mbchcd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-21]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_4dpzbckfs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_5cdbfcncj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-28]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_6fzrpsvf7 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-07-31]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_18g542x2gt Licensing Working Group – Contributor Terms working document.]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_7gfvrtgcx Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-04]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_8c9zvzhgm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-07]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_10fkt44vds Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-14]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0ddvp7zfq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-25]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0ddvp7zfq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-25]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1fgj6p9ds Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-08-28]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2hfmkwxdw Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-01]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0ggqxwvg9 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-04]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1hqj6kdc6 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-08]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_0hjw9nqch Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-11]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2dhcpgzrd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-18]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_4hssxddcb Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-23]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_5dkttfrdq Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-25]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_7d7k9fwht Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-09-29]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_8ck5tm9gb Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-02]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_11fwp5b5hs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-06]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_10fkkpqsgn Licensing Working Group Proposal to OSMF Members working document]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_14cg6kb6fs Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-09]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_15hmvfwkfd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-16]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_16cm23fthg Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-20]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_18fkcds5ft Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-23]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg3p525h_04jtsdqg4 Licensing Working Group, Website Terms of Use (working document, not a final version)]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_19zcvvpwfm Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-27]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr Licensing Working Group, Contributor Terms (working document, not a final version)]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_20f354b7d2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-10-30]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_21fxrc7ddd Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-03]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_22cr6s2ngk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-06]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_23d8vm36gz Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-10]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc95mxps_5fg6mx3d5 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-13]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_26cd9kdddb Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-20]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_27d3q447gh Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_28dgkdmhhq Licensing Working Group, OSM contributors change over consent wording draft, 2009-11-24]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_29fnv9bkdk Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-11-27]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_30g228jpgj Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-02]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_31hf7xpdf2 Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-04]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_32xxmtnwdp Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-15]
* [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_33cddjbpfv Licensing Working Group Minutes, 2009-12-18]

== Technical Working Group (sysadmins)==
* [[File:TWGMeetingSummary2010-08-25.pdf]]
* [[File:TWGmeetingsummary2010-11-11.pdf]]
* [[File:TWGmeetingsummary2011-01-26.pdf]]

[[Category:Minutes]][[Category:Working Groups]]

== Strategic Working Group ==

{| class=wikitable
|-
! Abbr !! Date !! Topics !! Minutes !! Draft / Approved
|-
| SWG || 13 May 2011 1600 UTC || ||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-13|13 May 2011 Minutes]] || next meeting
|-
| AoA || 16 May 2011 1700 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'' || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-16|16 May 2011 Minutes]] || next meeting
|-
| AoA || 09 May 2011 1700 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'' || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-09|9 May 2011 Minutes]] || DRAFT
|-
| SWG || 06 May 2011 1600 UTC || Continue page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee ||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-06|06 May 2011 Minutes]] || DRAFT
|-
| AoA || 02 May 2011 1700 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'' || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-05-2|2 May 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 29 April 2011 1600 UTC || SWG attendance. Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee ||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-29|29 April 2011 Minutes]] || DRAFT - in Progress
|-
| AoA || 25 April 2011 1700 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'' || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-25|25 April 2011 Minutes]] ||
|-
| SWG || 22 April 2011 1600 UTC || SWG functions. Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee ||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-22|22 April 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| AoA || 18 April 2011 1600 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-18|18 April 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 15 April 2011 1600 UTC || Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-15|15 April 2011 Minutes]] ||
|-
| AoA || 12 April 2011 1600 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-12|12 April 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 08 April 2011 1600 UTC || Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-08|08 April 2011 Minutes]] ||
|-
| AoA || 04 April 2011 1600 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-04|04 April 2011 Minutes]] || Meeting was not held
|-
| SWG || 01 April 2011 1600 UTC || Continue Front page discussion. AoA update from sub-committee |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-01|01 April 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| AoA || 28 March 2011 1600 UTC || ''AoA subcommittee'': Membership. |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-28|28 March 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 25 March 2011 1600 UTC || Articles of Association. |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-25|25 March 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 18 March 2011 1600 UTC || SWG membership. Articles of Association. |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-18|18 March 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 11 March 2011 1600 UTC || Routing. OSM.org front page |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-11|11 March 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 04 March 2011 1600 UTC || Routing policy discussion |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-04|04 March 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 25 February 2011 1600 UTC || Tile policy feedback from board, SWG attendance, Wikimapia discussion |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-25|25 February 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 18 February 2011 1600 UTC || Continue Budgeting and Routing policy discussion, Wikimapia discussion |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-18|18 February 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 11 February 2011 1600 UTC || Final review of tile policy, continue Budgeting and Routing policy discussion, |||[[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-11|11 February 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 04 February 2011 1600 UTC || Budgeting, Tile policy, Routing || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-04|04 February 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 27 January 2011 1500 UTC || Formalize SWG || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-27|27 January 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 20 January 2011 1500 UTC || || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-20|20 January 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 13 January 2011 1500 UTC || Budgeting process || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-13|13 January 2011 Minutes]] || provisionally accepted
|-
| SWG || 06 January 2011 1500 UTC || Budgeting process || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-06|06 January 2011 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 16 December 2010 1500 UTC || || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-16|16 Dec 2010 Minutes]] || Non-quorate. No minutes.
|-
| SWG || 08 December 2010 || || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-08|08 Dec 2010 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 02 December 2010 || || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-02|02 Dec 2010 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 25 November 2010 || Tile hosting || [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-25|25 Nov 2010 Minutes]] || accepted
|-
| SWG || 11 November 2010 || Hosting services || [http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-11 11 Nov 2010 Minutes] ||
|-
| SWG || 04 November 2010 || Policy re: additional tile layers on osm.org || [http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-04 04 Nov 2010 Minutes] || Draft
|}

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2011-05-11T14:25:20Z

Firefishy: Add donate link.

Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-05-06

2011-05-08T16:23:04Z

Firefishy: FF Apologed. Urgent server issue.

== Attendance ==

{| class=wikitable
! IRC !! Name !! Present !! Apologies
|-
| _chrisfl || Chris Fleming || ||
|-
| Eugene || Eugene Usvitsky || ||
|-
| Firefishy || Grant Slater || || Yes
|-
| apmon || Kai Krueger || ||
|-
| mkl || Mikel Maron || ||
|-
| RichardF || Richard Fairhurst || ||
|-
| samlarsen1 || Sam Larsen || ||
|-
| stevenfeldman || Steven Feldman || ||
|-
| toffehoff || Henk Hoff || ||
|-
| TomH || Tom Hughes || ||
|-
| twain47 || Brian Quinion || ||
|-
| wonderchook || Kate Chapman || ||
|}

{| class=wikitable
! colspan="2" | Also attending
|-
! IRC handle !! Name
|-
| ||
|}

== Minutes (draft) ==
* Review minutes of [[Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-29|29 April 2011 Minutes]]
:* Proposed by:
:* Seconded by:
* Old business

* Agenda
:* OSMF Articles of Association Update
::* engagement with community re: previously stated concerns about AoA is in progress.
::* AoA considering when / which lawyer to engage with re AoA advice.

* osm.org web site front page.

* next meeting Friday 13 May 2011 @ 1600UTC

== IRC Log ==

18:15 toffehoff I missed the first bit.... 18:16 toffehoff (for logging purposes that is) 18:16 mklwhatever toffehoff ... we haven't started yet, so let's just take yours 18:16 mklwhatever thx guys 18:16 mklwhatever ok 18:16 toffehoff ok 18:16 mklwhatever so agenda 18:16 mklwhatever * old business: AoA update, front page 18:16 toffehoff thanks stevenfeldman for taking the notes. 18:16 mklwhatever * new business: list etiquette 18:17 toffehoff let's start with AoA? 18:17 mklwhatever anything else? where do we want to start? 18:17 mklwhatever cool 18:17 *** stevenfeldman left #osm-strategic 18:17 *** stevenfeldman joined #osm-strategic 18:17 toffehoff We've retained Francis Davey 18:17 mklwhatever toffehoff, Eugene? AoA 18:17 RichardF \o/ 18:18 toffehoff I've had a first meeting with him yesterday. 18:18 toffehoff Will work on several subjects. 18:19 toffehoff He will help us by asking the questions needed 18:19 toffehoff how we want to be governed. 18:19 toffehoff Will have a proposal ready by SotM eu 18:19 toffehoff for discussion. 18:19 toffehoff After that, Francis will draft a new set of Articles for us. 18:20 toffehoff Which will be put up for voting on our AGM. 18:20 mklwhatever excellent 18:20 toffehoff Let me say I'm very excited to have Francis on board. 18:20 RichardF that's great. well done. 18:20 apmon He has made a good impression on the legal mailing list. So that sounds great 18:20 TomH having met him a couple of weeks back I can say he's just as good in person 18:21 toffehoff He already came up with interesting subjects to think about. 18:21 mklwhatever so he will ask questions. how will we answer? AoA subcommittee is PoC of course .. but how to keep foundation members looped in 18:22 toffehoff We as a subcommittee 18:22 toffehoff ... and you are all still welcome to join :-) 18:22 apmon If there are a set of questions, those can be posted to the lists 18:22 toffehoff it's about what needs to be in AoA and what not. 18:22 toffehoff lists like in multiple? 18:23 stevenfeldman can't we make this an open dialogue/forum where any other interested parties can comment on the various discussion topics? 18:23 toffehoff There already is a wiki page .... 18:23 toffehoff which I cannot see at the moment .... 18:23 *** mkl1 joined #osm-strategic 18:23 TomH Firefishy reports PSU in foundation server is dead - he has gone to Maplin for a new one 18:23 apmon toffehoff: Post to foundation list, with an invitation to talk 18:23 stevenfeldman lists don't really encourage engagement and wiki pages certainly aren't going to allow easy discussion 18:23 mklwhatever probably the best thing is to post updates and questions of interest to the list. but really, keep discussion in the AoA group 18:24 toffehoff That also our reason that we want to have a proposal ready for SotM eu. 18:24 mklwhatever if someone is really interested, they can make an effort to join the chat 18:25 toffehoff Proposal meaning: For voting we can choose a, b or c. We propose b, because ...... 18:25 toffehoff And we can have a discussion about it. 18:25 RichardF agree with Mikel. The most important thing is for people to be aware that SWG exists and that they can join. I'm very wary of putting specific proposals out for open comment - it just invites the usual sniping on details 18:25 toffehoff Francis would be very helpfull in pointing out several options. 18:26 apmon RichardF: Well, that is the way politics work. 18:26 toffehoff RichardF agree. 18:26 toffehoff We need it more in a consumable way. 18:26 mklwhatever sounds like a plan 18:27 mklwhatever Chris asked me a question about Articles and Funders on list 18:27 stevenfeldman toffehoff: I guess if we make it too consumable we will get too many random unthought through contributions 18:27 mklwhatever have to say, it's never come up. but i'd be happy to ask them, if there were specific questions 18:27 mklwhatever i think one of the main things is being a non-profit vs a charity 18:28 mklwhatever not sure how that's handled in AoA 18:28 *** stevenfeldman left #osm-strategic 18:28 toffehoff stevenfeldman: sure. With consumable I meant giving a couple of options and talk about the options instead of : shoot away. 18:28 TomH it isn't - that's outside the scope 18:28 RichardF I don't think that there's a specific "non-profit" concept in E&W law (though I'm no expert) 18:28 TomH the AoA are the constitution of the company - a decision to become a charity would need whole different set of docs AFAIK 18:28 mklwhatever there's also matters of being able to operate in other countries, for donation purposes ... say 5013c in the US, to get US funding 18:29 TomH RichardF: indeed - their is no equivalent of a US 5013c 18:29 TomH it is a "Company Limited by Guarantee" 18:29 *** stevenfeldman joined #osm-strategic 18:29 RichardF nods 18:29 wonderchook well in the US even the non-profit versus charity stuff is seperate anyway (not to complicate:)) 18:29 stevenfeldman I think if registered in the UK there s a lot more scrutiny for a charity 18:29 TomH which means there are no shareholders, so all profit is retained in the company 18:29 RichardF though you _could_ potentially have a Community Interest Company, but let's not complicate it ;) 18:29 TomH yeah that;s a whole new thing I don't know much about 18:29 toffehoff According to Francis us being a Company Limited by Guarantee is the best option. 18:30 wonderchook I think to operate in other countries you would still have to incorporate in them 18:30 stevenfeldman does the foundation need to operate in multiple countries? 18:30 mklwhatever well as long as this registration and the AoA doesn't prevent pursuing charity status or 5013c or whatever, that's my only concern regarding funders 18:30 wonderchook stevenfeldman: only if they wanted to try to get certain types of donations 18:31 mklwhatever the big foundations are usually flexible in this ... since they operate internationally themselves 18:31 apmon Can that not be handled by local chapters? 18:31 stevenfeldman wonderchook: good point, we could need a US registration for that purpose 18:31 Eugene apmon: +1 18:31 mklwhatever apmon: probably another issue for AoA 18:31 wonderchook yeah would also depend on the chapter set-up 18:32 wonderchook OSM-US is seeking tax-exempt status for example 18:32 toffehoff AoA is for how we want to govern. 18:32 mklwhatever Eugene, toffehoff ... local chapters is entirely separate, yes? 18:32 stevenfeldman are the chapters, chapters f osm or of the foundation? I thought the former? 18:32 toffehoff Registering ourselves in different countries is not part of AoA 18:32 toffehoff mklwhatever Yes Local Chapters is different. 18:32 Eugene mklwhatever: yes 18:33 mklwhatever toffehoff: again, as long as we still have the flexibility to approach that, fine. especially with questions of membership and local chapters. 18:33 *** chrisfl_ joined #osm-strategic 18:34 toffehoff Well, membership and local chapters is something we need to agree on by the time we draft our AoA 18:34 mklwhatever ok 18:34 toffehoff Will we have different types of members for example 18:34 apmon What would be the options for membership? 18:34 toffehoff But luckily also the discussion about Local Chapters is now handled by the LCWG 18:35 mklwhatever ok. well perhaps it's enough details for now. good to know all these issues are being looked at, if appropriate. 18:35 toffehoff apmon: for example: would Local Chapter be a type of member of the foundation? 18:35 toffehoff and how does it differ from the individual members 18:35 toffehoff But that's primairly a discussion for the LC working group. 18:36 mklwhatever makes sense for now :) 18:36 mklwhatever toffehoff: anything else to review on AoA with the whole group before moving on? 18:36 toffehoff Not from my side... Eugene? 18:36 Eugene Nope. 18:37 toffehoff Next meeting btw: monday 18:37 mklwhatever cool, thanks a lot guys. great to see this moving 18:37 Eugene 17:00 UTC 18:37 mklwhatever next is either front page/usability, or list etiquette 18:37 toffehoff ... on this channel 18:38 mklwhatever i'm kinda curious what you had in mind toffehoff, about list etiquette 18:38 stevenfeldman me 2 18:38 Eugene List etiquette should be shorter to discuss (I hope). 18:39 toffehoff Last week we also discussed a bit about the mailinglist and how people acted 18:39 toffehoff really trying to avoid terms like "trolling" 18:39 mklwhatever last time things flared up seriously was in september, when SteveC evoked BDFL 18:40 Blackadder gives his apologies for today 18:40 mklwhatever he basically had said that he'd moderate anything that got out of hand 18:40 mklwhatever but that's not something to put in one person's hands like that, imo 18:41 wonderchook yeah, I don't think that makes sense 18:41 toffehoff so, what does make sense? 18:41 apmon definately needs broader support than a single person 18:41 toffehoff Absolutely 18:41 mklwhatever we do have a rough posted etiquette http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette 18:41 Eugene apmon: +1 18:41 samlarsen1 each mailing list has an admin - should assign task to them 18:41 toffehoff But how can we "enforce" this? 18:41 mklwhatever but clearly, something needs to change. OSM list culture just gets so poisoned 18:41 stevenfeldman it's not just the odd eruption that we might want to manage, I think there is a problem with the tone of much "discussion" which may scare off any newbies or the fainthearted 18:41 mklwhatever toffehoff: exactly 18:41 mklwhatever talk list admin is Steve, I think 18:42 mklwhatever stevenfeldman: +1 18:42 wonderchook stevenfeldman + 1 18:42 Eugene Isn't it time to move mailing list to forums to be more open? 18:42 toffehoff so, this is what I meant :-) 18:42 Eugene And easy to moderate, too. 18:42 mklwhatever OSM has a bad reputation. i think it's undeserved based on people actually doing stuff. there's a vocal minority tarnashing the image 18:42 stevenfeldman eugene: +1million 18:42 mackerski notices a more positive turn to many of the heated discussions on -talk lately 18:43 wonderchook I don't think that it is a technology problem really. But it is a matter of reputation 18:43 mklwhatever one way to deal with it is for people who call to jump into those discussions 18:43 toffehoff the problem with mailinglist is, you cannot control it. 18:43 stevenfeldman the challenge with a do-ocracy is how to encourage more people to become doers rather than watchers 18:43 chrisfl_ having some kind of community guidelines wouldn't be a bad thing. 18:44 toffehoff ....the way you can with a forum. 18:44 wonderchook yeah, I think have clear rules help so at least there is something to point to 18:44 Eugene wonderchook: I know. But mailing list look more close and internal than open forums. And editing posts and even banning users there is impossible unlike in forums. 18:44 mackerski Lately, poisonous contributions have been getting challenged. 18:44 mklwhatever chrisfl_: we do. it just that no one pays attention or enforces 18:44 mackerski And their level has diminished accordingly 18:44 stevenfeldman wonderchook: forums do allow a better way of threading conversations, following threads and do not prevenet mail abstracts as well 18:44 mklwhatever mackerski: i've been trying. perhaps more of us need to damped down those threads when they start up 18:44 wonderchook stevenfeldman: I'm not disagreeing that forums are better technology, but I think more than anything it is a people issue:) 18:45 mackerski mklwhatever: I tend to agree - for a long time, poisonous contributions were ignored by many of clue 18:45 mackerski Sometimes that's a good idea 18:45 Eugene While we can't change people, we can change the way they interact with (and influene) community. 18:45 mklwhatever wonderchook: is the people issue just the behavior on lists? 18:45 stevenfeldman wonderchook: opening up in forums might encourage more participation and help to change tone, there again it might not d:) 18:46 mackerski To take the example of the licence change, now that we have movement there, confronting FUD has been quite useful in reducing its prominence 18:46 wonderchook so it is a tough combination of people leading by example and then having the community rules finalized and enforced I think 18:46 RichardF we basically need to marginalise the lists. tools like help.osm.org are good for that. 18:46 mackerski Confronting isn't the same as trading insults, of course 18:47 mklwhatever mackerski: a fine line! 18:47 toffehoff RichardF I think so too. 18:47 mklwhatever RichardF: definitely good to lead newbies to other places 18:47 mackerski If you have facts on your side, you don't need insults 18:47 toffehoff but you'll still get them ... 18:48 mklwhatever this starts to lead into front page design in fact :) 18:48 apmon RichardF: One possible problem with help is that it isn't currently internationalised 18:48 RichardF can be fixed 18:48 toffehoff forum.openstreetmap.org 18:48 apmon should be fixed ... ;-) 18:48 toffehoff ? 18:48 RichardF de.help.osm.org or whatever 18:48 apmon RichardF: +1 18:48 mklwhatever i feel like the local lists aren't troubled by this as much 18:49 mklwhatever it's mainly talk, legal-talk 18:49 RichardF essentially we need to define what the lists are for 18:49 wonderchook yeah, the local lists that I'm on don't appear to be 18:49 RichardF local discussion - good 18:49 mackerski mklwhatever: I wiish you were correct - talk-de is a bit troublesome 18:49 apmon mklwhatever: Join talk-de or tlk-au for a while 18:49 RichardF specific project discussion, e.g. JOSM or P2 - good 18:49 TomH steve isn't the talk admin - mcn is 18:49 mackerski Though even there, The Real Community is confronting the loons 18:49 RichardF newbies - unsuitable 18:49 mklwhatever no thanks! :) 18:50 Eugene mklwhatever: Believe me, it is sometimes :) Russian forum as the largest OSM forum has a lot of senseless discussions but we still are able to control their tone. 18:50 RichardF general project decisipn-making - definitely not 18:50 toffehoff We can say whatever we want about where mailinglist should be used for. as long as we cannot enforce it, it's meaningless 18:51 stevenfeldman where do we take this discussion? is this something for SWG? 18:51 RichardF apmon: talk-de isn't a local list - it's a German-language whole-project list. hence the problems 18:51 Eugene tofflehoff: +1 18:51 mklwhatever stevenfeldman: i think so. and as usual, who else? :) 18:51 toffehoff I think one of the questions is: do we want to continue with mailinglists? 18:52 toffehoff Or use other media instead? 18:52 mklwhatever what could be done? refinement of community policies. structure for enforcement on list. guidance on the appropriate places for discussions. 18:52 stevenfeldman OK mklwahtever: then should we pilot a switch f one list, say strategic to a forum to see whethwer it encourages participation and changes tone? 18:52 mklwhatever no problem with strategic though :) 18:52 Eugene stevenfeldman: Strategic is very correct. 18:53 mackerski Positive engagement by mappers of clue seems to me to be in the spirit of what SteveC was trying to do with his previous interventions 18:53 mklwhatever and i'm not convinced it's about the technology 18:53 mackerski "Policy of engagement" 18:53 RichardF ...only because the disruptive elemrnts haven't noticed strategic yet 18:53 stevenfeldman eugene: might not be if we opened it up and got more people observing/participating 18:53 mklwhatever mackerski: +1 18:53 mackerski For sure we can emphasise other channels... 18:53 toffehoff I really like the + and - feedback you can give on some forums. 18:53 Eugene stevenfeldman: Probably... 18:53 mackerski But many people just _like_ Mailing lists and will keep using them 18:54 Eugene mackerski: No, if they are switched off ) 18:54 RichardF mackerski: sure. but we don't have to use them for business. 18:54 toffehoff With that you can filter out all the bad stuff. 18:54 mackerski Then others will operate their own 18:54 RichardF if people want to talk, let them. 18:54 apmon Eugene: I would be against taking a decission like switching the mailinglist off easily 18:54 apmon it once again needs to support of the community and not just SWG 18:54 RichardF talk@ as "chat for those who want to" is fine. it's a problem when we invest any more significance in it 18:55 samlarsen1 don't have to switch off lists, just stop using them 18:55 mklwhatever so if we started using forums, do the issues of etiquette policy, positive engagement, and enforcement go away? 18:55 mackerski Like companies deciding whether to engage with customers on social media - they sometimes feel they can prevent the badmouthing just because they don't provide the forum 18:55 stevenfeldman Mailing lists do not encourage a casual/occasional observer who might subsequently become a participant and a contributor 18:55 TomH any mailing list which is switched off is an area of the project I won't be involved in anymore for one 18:55 apmon mklwhatever: The big advantage / danger of forums is that one can moderate them other than banning people 18:56 toffehoff and we can leave that up to the people on the forum themselves. 18:56 stevenfeldman Can we try a forum for a while and assess? 18:57 RichardF we do have forum.openstreetmap.org already, of course. it's primitive but seems generally to work ok. 18:57 Eugene stevenfeldman: How we can do it? We have successful local forums so it works. And we can't transfer talk@ to forums. 18:57 apmon Well, there are some communities that are exclusively on mailing list, some that extensively use both and others than nearly only use forums 18:57 mkl1 i think he was suggesting we eat our own dog food 18:58 mkl1 but i think there are two issues 18:58 mkl1 one is defining the culture of how we'd like our community to engage. and actively working for that 18:59 mkl1 two is technical. either with mechanisms for enforcement on the current lists; or moving to some other discussion platform, forum, etc 18:59 mkl1 i feel like two is more fraught, though more obvious 18:59 mkl1 one is something we should do anyway 18:59 mkl1 and we're nearly at the hour 19:00 stevenfeldman mkl1: I don't think you can enforce behaviour, you can lead by example and encouragement (perhaps backed up by moderation) 19:00 apmon Also, as long as there are emotional subjects like licensing, there will be heated flamewars no matter what technology you use 19:00 mkl1 we have to table the discussion til next week 19:00 mkl1 or take it on list ;) 19:00 Eugene :) 19:01 stevenfeldman or launch it on a forum :D :) 19:01 mkl1 two quick things 19:01 mkl1 anything to report on front page stuff? 19:01 mkl1 would be great to have a few more things implemented and pushed live, and then continue our discussion next week mkl1 and i guess for now, we have to keep the same time, and doodle for a time ... i'll share the doodle on the list 19:02 mackerski expresses his thanks for the new features in the edit history 19:02 Eugene I vote for removing bot edits from History tab (as it was changed anyway) 19:02 samlarsen1 gotta run 19:03 *** samlarsen1 quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client) 19:03 Eugene And yes, Mikel, thanks for these changes. 19:03 apmon mkl1: Imho that is not really for SWG, but the dev lists 19:03 mkl1 thx ... i'll gather requests :) 19:03 TomH Eugene: yes we all want to do that - we just need a way to odemtify them! 19:03 toffehoff mkl1: in that case: milk & sugar plz 19:03 mkl1 apmon: sure ... but the idea is for us to get our feet wet, so we have a little more concrete understanding of where to go 19:03 TomH actually it's not bot edits we want to remove, it's edits which span the area without touching it 19:04 mkl1 TomH: OWL :) 19:04 Eugene TonH: if I remember correctly, OWL viewer has already filtered them. At least we can filter xybot :) 19:04 TomH we have the technology (OWL) we just need to deploy it in production 19:04 mkl1 cool 19:04 stevenfeldman this does not sound strategic to me? 19:04 mkl1 anyhow, we should close SWG 19:04 toffehoff Have we ended? 19:04 TomH which means sorting out hardware for it 19:04 mkl1 close 19:04 apmon mkl1: But SWG is possibly the wrong place to get your feet wet with this, as it is not strategic 19:05 toffehoff *** end logging ***

Licence/Contributor Terms/DE

2011-03-26T17:10:46Z

Firefishy: Provide link to DE 1.2.4 on OSM site. Needs checking I guess.

Inoffizielle Übersetzung der [[License/Contributor_Terms|OpenStreetMap-Teilnehmervereinbarung]] - einzig rechtlich verbindlich ist die [[License/Contributor_Terms|englische Version]] dieses Textes!

'''UPDATE! [[OSM:DE:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms|OpenStreetMap-Teilnehmervereinbarung 1.2.4]]'''

= OpenStreetMap-Teilnehmervereinbarung 1.0 =

Danke für Ihr Interesse, Daten und/oder andere Inhalte (zusammenfassend als "Inhalte" bezeichnet) zur Geo-Datenbank des OpenStreetMap-Projekts (des "Projekts") beizutragen. Diese Teilnehmervereinbarung (die "Vereinbarung") wird zwischen Ihnen ("Sie") und der OpenStreetMap Foundation ("OSMF") abgeschlossen und behandelt die Schutzrechte an allen Inhalten, die Sie dem Projekt zur Verfügung stellen. Bitte lesen Sie die folgenden Bedingungen sorgfältig durch, und klicken Sie zum Fortsetzen unten auf den Button "Akzeptieren" oder "Ablehnen".

1. Sie stimmen zu, dass Sie nur Inhalte einfügen, für die Sie der Urheberrechtsinhaber sind (solange die Inhalte urheberrechtlich schützbare Elemenete enthalten). Sie bestätigen, dass Sie das Recht haben, die Lizenz gemäß Abschnitt 2 unten zu erteilen und dass eine solche Lizenz gegen kein Gesetz und keinen Vertrag verstößt und nach Ihrem besten Wissen keine Rechte Dritter verletzt. Wenn Sie nicht der Urheberrechtsinhaber der Inhalte sind, versichern Sie, dass Sie die ausdrückliche Erlaubnis des Rechtsinhabers haben, die Inhalte einzureichen und die unten genannte Lizenz zu erteilen.

2. Eingeräumte Rechte. Unter den Einschränkungen des Abschnitts 3 unten erteilen Sie hiermit der OSMF eine weltweite, kostenfreie, nicht-exklusive, dauerhafte, unkündbare Lizenz, alle durch das Urheberrecht beschränkten Handlungen an allen Bestandteilen der Inhalte sowohl im originalen als auch jedem anderen Medium durchzuführen. In diesen Rechten ist die kommerzielle Nutzung ausdrücklich enthalten und kein Bereich ausgeschlossen. Diese Rechte enthalten ohne Beschränkung das Recht, das Werk über mehrere Ebenen von Unterlizenznehmern weiterzulizenzieren. In dem durch die anwendbaren lokalen Gesetze und Urheberrechtsübereinkommen ermöglichbaren Rahmen verzichten Sie auf alle Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte, die Sie an den Inhalten haben könnten, und/oder deren Geltendmachung gegenüber der OSMF und ihren Lizenznehmern.

3. Die OSMF stimmt zu, dass sie Ihre Inhalte als Teil einer Datenbank nur unter den Bedingungen einer der folgenden Lizenzen nutzen oder weiterlizenzieren wird: ODbL 1.0 für die Datenbank und DbCL 1.0 für die individuellen Inhalte der Datenbank; CC-BY-SA 2.0; oder eine andere freie und offene Lizenz, welche durch eine Abstimmung der OSMF-Mitglieder ausgewählt und durch eine Abstimmung mit Zweidrittelmehrheit der aktiven Teilnehmer bestätigt wurde.

Ein "aktiver Teilnehmer" wird definiert als:
* eine natürliche Person (die eine oder mehrere Kennungen verwendet), die das Projekt in mindestens 3 Kalendermonaten innerhalb der letzten 12 Monate bearbeitet hat, (d.h. sie hat längerfristiges Interesse gezeigt), und
* eine gültige E-Mailadresse in ihrem Anmeldeprofil eingetragen hat und innerhalb von 3 Wochen antwortet.

4. Auf Ihren Wunsch oder den Wunsch des Urheberrechtsinhabers stimmt OSMF zu, Sie oder den Urheberrechtsinhaber zu nennen. Dafür wird ein Verfahren vorgesehen, derzeit eine Webseite http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.

5. Abgesehen von diesen Festlegungen behalten Sie sich alle Rechte und Ansprüche an Ihren Inhalten vor.

'''Haftungsbeschränkung'''

6.1 Soweit durch das anwendbare Recht erlaubt, stellen Sie den Inhalt abgesehen von den Festlegungen in Abschnitt 1 "wie besehen" ohne jede ausdrückliche oder implizite Garantie zur Verfügung, einschließlich ohne Einschränkung jegliche Garantie für Marktfähigkeit, Eignung für einen bestimmten Zweck oder sonstiges.

6.2 Abgesehen von gesetzlich nicht ausschließbarer oder beschränkbarer Haftung, haften weder Sie noch die OSMF für jegliche besonderen Schäden, Begleitschäden, Folgeschäden oder Strafschadenersatz, unabhängig von der Ursache und unter jeder Haftungstheorie. Dieser Ausschluss gilt auch, wenn eine Partei auf die Möglichkeit solcher Schäden hingewiesen wurde.

7. Sonstiges. Diese Vereinbarung unterliegt dem englischen Recht mit Ausnahme des Kollisionsrechts. Sie erklären sich einverstanden, dass das Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenverkauf (1980) hiermit in Gänze von der Anwendung auf diese Vereinbarung ausgeschlossen wird. Für den Fall, dass eine Bestimmung dieser Vereinbarung ungültig sein sollte, stimmen die Vertragspartner überein, dass die Gültigkeit der verbleibenenden Teile dieser Vereinbarung dadurch nicht beeinträchtigt werden soll. Dies ist die vollständige Vereinbarung zwischen Ihnen und der OSMF, durch die alle vorherigen schriftlichen oder mündlichen Vereinbarungen bezüglich durch diese Vereinbarung geregelten Angelenheit abgelöst wird.

Licence/Historic/We Are Changing The License

2011-03-26T16:53:29Z

Firefishy: /* What Are The Choices? */ Revise TODO link.

Translations: (unofficial)
* [[OSM:DE:ODbL/Wir wechseln die Lizenz|Deutsch: Wir wechseln die Lizenz]]
* [[OSM:ES:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Español: Estamos cambiando la licencia]]
* [[OSM:JA:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|日本語: 我々はライセンスを変更中です]]
* [[OSM:Pt-br:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Português do Brasil: Nós Estamos Mudando a Licença]]
* [[OSM:IT:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Italiano: Stiamo cambiando la Licenza]]
* [[OSM:Fi:ODbL/We Are Changing The License|Suomi: Vaihdamme lisenssiä]]
* [[OSM:FR:ODbL/We_Are_Changing_The_License|Français: Nous changeons de licence]]
* [[OSM:Cz:ODbL/We_Are_Changing_The_License|Česky: Měníme licenci]]

== We Are Changing The License ==

''OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways.''

OpenStreetMap is asking existing contributors to re-license their contributions under the [http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database License 1.0]. For those not familiar, this page explains the basic reasons and provides links to further resources with more detail.

== What Are The Choices? ==

You can see the final draft of the page you will be presented with [[https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_0cc77vdd9 here]]

You have three choices.

* '''Agree''' You agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms, ( [[License/Contributor_Terms| full text]], [[License/Contributor_Terms_Summary| human readable]] ) including re-licensing your contributions under the ODbL. Anything that you have contributed in the past will be available forever under CC-BY-SA. This includes anything you contribute from now until the license change-over actually happens ... this needs a critical mass of folks agreeing. From the change-over the database with new contributions you make will be available under ODbL. Read on to find out about the differences between the current and new license.

* '''Agree, and I consider my contributions Public Domain''' Legally, this is the same as '''Agree'''. But it shows that you would prefer a simple license that just makes the data available to everyone without any restrictions at all. This will help define the future direction of OpenStreetMap.

* '''Decline'''. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions for use under the ODbL. (TODO: Needs revision. [[OSM:Contributor Terms Declined|Text displayed to people who decline.]])

=== Voluntary acceptance phase ===
During the voluntary acceptance phase of the license change, you can [http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms accept the new license and contributor terms here] or from your API user settings page at http://OpenStreetMap.org. You way have to log in first.

== Why do we have a license? ==

Our goal is to provide geographic data that is free and open to all to use. To make sure that your contributions are provided free and open, and remain free and open, we have a license that says that.

== What license is being changed? ==

We want to change the current CC-BY-SA 2.0 to Open Database License (OdbL) 1.0.

The license that covers the contributed geodata (nodes, ways, relations) and the GPX traces that you upload. That is, anything that is in the Postgresql database and which we explicitly publish, like planet.osm.

Map tiles will no longer be covered, explained below.

The change does not cover the wiki which will remain CC BY-SA. It does not cover software and software source code, which are usually but not always GPL (GNU Public License).

== Why are we changing the license? ==

Our current user license is Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0. It for not designed for data and the creators of the license state, "Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases.".

The main issues for the OpenStreetMap project are:

* The current license uses only copyright law. This clearly protects creative works such as written documents, pictures and photos. It does not clearly protect data, particularly in the US.

* The current license is not written for data and databases. It is therefore very difficult to interpret. If someone uses your data in a map in a book and the map has several layers, what should be the placed under CC-BY-SA. Just the OpenStreetMap layer and any enhancements? The whole map, including any unconnected layers and markers? The whole book?

* It is difficult or impossible to ask questions about what can and cannot be done, as this means asking all the thousands of contributors individually to give their permission.

* This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway.

* It is difficult or impossible for folks to mix our data with data under other licenses.

You can read more here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable

== Have other options been considered? ==

Yes. There are three main options. Which option you personally support depends on what "free and open" means to you. We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but have it written explicitly for data.

The new Contributor Terms also contains a section that allows you or future mappers to participate in changing the license provided that you maintain an active interest.

The options:

1. Use a “Public Domain” license

Putting something in the Public Domain means letting anyone do anything they like with the data without any permissions needed and without any restrictions at all. It is not possible to do this in many countries so instead a license saying the same thing can be used. Creative Commons recommend CC0 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ . A Public Domain license has no Share-Alike provision, meaning that anyone can mix and match their own data with OpenStreetMap data without making it available for free public use. Public Domain licenses are very short and easy for anyone to understand.

A large section of the OpenStreetMap community would like to switch to a “Public Domain” license.

However, a significant proportion of contributors are vehemently opposed to this and we would like to keep the project unified. There is also a fear that large organisations could take the data and release a better product that ours. This fear may or may not be true, but if we go Public Domain, it would very difficult to reverse course.

We therefore ask you to accept a change to a license that is still Share-Alike but specifically written for databases and may better address concerns that you have. You will have the opportunity to tick a box that says you prefer "Public Domain". The new Contributor Terms also has an explicit mechanism for a 2/3 majority of active contributors to make changes to the license in the future.

2. Another Share-Alike license written for data. There isn't one. The Open Database License is the only one that is well developed. OpenStreetMap is the pioneer here.

3. Stay with the current license. Some of the community would like us to stay with the current license, arguing that the vague nature is good thing. It forces extremely strong Share-Alike provisions even if it stops many projects using our data. They also point out that ODbL is unproven, OpenStreetMap will be the first big user and that it is longer and more complexly written than the existing license.

In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a proposal to change the OpenStreetMap geodata license. 55% of eligible members voted, and 89% of those who voted have voted yes. Almost 49% of all eligible members have expressed their agreement to ODbL, and 6% have expressed their disagreement. [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000751.html Detailed results]. The community created a for and against the OdbL license during the vote here:

* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes
* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_No

== What are the main differences between the old and the new license? ==

The old license is written for creative works such as text and photos. The new license is specifically written for data and databases.

The old license attempts to protect data using copyright law only. The new license attempts to protect data using copyright law, contract law and database rights. The protection offered by each varies around the world. Database rights, for example, are applicable in Europe but not in the USA.

Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”. You can read more about what these terms mean here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License

However, there is one big Share-Alike difference between the old and new license. In the old license, if someone makes a map then they have to share the map under the same license, but they do not have to directly share any data they used to make the map. Under the new license, they can put a map under any license they like, provided that they share any data enhancements they have made to our data. The main reason for this is that maps can now be made with layers from incompatible data sources.

In the old license, any question about the license would have to be asked to thousands of contributors. Under the new license, the Foundation is allowed by you to publish the complete dataset as a single licensor. If there is doubt whether OpenStreetMap data can be used for a particular project, the Foundation can be asked if it objects or not. The Foundation has set up a process called "Community Guidelines" to make sure that contributors are consulted and can help define any response made.

== Can I trust the OpenStreetMap Foundation ? ==

The Foundation is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.", ( http://www.osmfoundation.org ).

But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with commercial interests?

* You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.

* The Foundation is not allowed to take the data and release it under a commercial license.

* If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data can be made and released by a different body.

* If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation.

Licence/Contributor Terms/IT

2011-03-24T13:31:55Z

Firefishy: Add header

= OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.0 =

Ti ringraziamo per la tua disponibilità a fornire dati e/o qualunque altro contenuto (di seguito indicati collettivamente “Contenuti”) al database geografico del progetto OpenStreetMap (di seguito “Progetto”).. Il presente accordo per la contribuzione di dati (di seguito “Accordo”) si conclude fra Te e la OpenStreetMap Foundation (“OSMF”) e disciplina i diritti sui Contenuti che Tu decidi di apportare al progetto. Leggi per favore le seguenti condizioni generali e premi il tasto “Accetto” o “Rifiuto” posto in fondo al testo per proseguire.

1. Sei impegnato ad apportare esclusivamente contenuti rispetto ai quali Tu sia titolare dei relativi diritti di autore (nella misura in cui i Contenuti riguardino dati o elementi suscettibili di protezione secondo il diritto di autore). Tu dichiari e garantisci di poter validamente concedere la licenza di cui al successivo Articolo 2 e dichiari e garantisci altresì che tale licenza non viola nessuna legge e/o nessun contratto e, per quanto sia di Tua conoscenza, non viola alcun diritto di terzi. Nel caso Tu non sia titolare dei diritti di autore rispetto ai Contenuti, Tu dichiari e garantisci di avere ricevuto del titolare di tali diritti l’espressa autorizzazione di apportare i Contenuti e concederne la licenza di cui al successivo punto 2.

2. Diritti concessi. Con il presente Accordo Tu, nei limiti di cui al successivo punto 3, concedi a OSMF in via NON esclusiva una licenza gratuita, valida su tutto il territorio mondiale e di carattere perpetuo e irrevocabile a compiere qualunque atto riservato ai titolari dei diritti di autore sopra i Contenuti e/o qualunque loro singola parte, da effettuarsi su qualunque supporto e mezzo di comunicazione ivi compresi quelli ulteriori e diversi rispetto all’originale.

3. OSMF userà o concederà in sub-licenza i tuoi Contenuti come parte di un database e solamente nel rispetto di una di queste licenze: ODbl 1.0 per quanto riguarda il database e DdCL 1.0 per i contenuti individuali del database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; o una altra licenza gratuita e di carattere aperto. I membri di OMSF potranno scegliere altre licenze gratuite e di carattere aperto, le quali si intenderanno approvate con il voto della maggioranza dei 2/3 dei voti dei contributori attivi.

Per “contributore attivo” deve intendersi:

una persona fisica (indipendentemente dal fatto che usi uno o più account) con i seguenti requisiti cumulativi: 1) che negli ultimi dodici mesi ha fornito in almeno tre diverse circostanze verificatesi in tre diversi mesi propri Contenuti pubblicati nel Progetto (dimostrando così un interesse continuato nel tempo); 2) che ha sempre mantenuto un valido indirizzo email nel suo profilo di registrazione rispondendo a eventuali messaggi entro tre settimane dal loro invio.

4. OSMF riconoscerà la esistenza dei diritti di autore sui Contenuti apportati, e a tal fine indicherà Te o il loro eventuale titolare originario, a scelta di quest’ultimo o Tua. In questo senso verrà attuato un apposito meccanismo di attribuzione, che al momento risulta dalla [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution pagina web].

5. Salvo quanto stabilito nel presente Accordo, Tu conservi ogni eventuale altro diritto o prerogativa relativa ai Contenuti da Te apportati.

6. Limitazione di responsabilità

: 1. Nei limiti consentiti dalla legge applicabile, e senza pregiudizio a quanto previsto dal precedente articolo 1; Tu fornisci i Contenuti senza garanzie esplicite o implicite di nessun tipo per quanto riguarda – a titolo esemplificativo – la loro qualità, assenza di vizi o difetti, adeguatezza e conformità al loro scopo o altro.

: 2. Fatte salve le responsabilità che la legge non permette di escludere o derogare, né Tu né OSMF potranno intendersi responsabili di eventuali danni, siano essi diretti o indiretti, a titolo contrattuale o extracontrattuale, morali o materiali, e a qualunque genere essi appartengano. La presente esclusione di responsabilità sarà valida anche nel caso in cui una delle parti sia stata avvertita della possibilità che tali danni si verifichino.

7. Varie. Il presente Accordo è disciplinato dalla legge vigente in Inghilterra – Regno Unito, senza possibilità di applicazione delle relative norme di diritto internazionale privato. Si conviene espressamente che al presente Accordo non potrà essere applicata la Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite.

Licence/Contributor Terms/FR

2011-03-24T13:18:29Z

Firefishy: /* OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.2.4 */ Remove some spacing.

= OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.2.4 =

Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt pour la base de données géographiques du projet OpenStreetMap (« le Projet ») et pour votre volonté d’y intégrer des données et/ou tout autre contenu (collectivement « les Contenus »). Cet accord de contribution (« l’Accord ») est conclu entre vous (ci-après « Vous ») et la Fondation OpenStreetMap (« OSMF ») et a pour objectif de définir l’étendue des droits de propriété intellectuelle relatifs aux Contenus que vous déciderez de soumettre au Projet avec ce compte utilisateur. Lisez attentivement les articles suivants et si vous en acceptez les termes, cliquez sur le bouton « J’accepte » en bas de la page afin de continuer.

1. Parce que nous respectons les droits relatifs à la propriété intellectuelle de toute personne et qu’il s’avère indispensable que nous soyons à même de répondre à toute contestation de titulaire de droits de propriété intellectuelle :

(a) Votre apport de données ne doit pas porter atteinte aux droit des tiers. Dans le cas d’un apport de Contenus, Vous garantissez le fait que, à votre connaissance, Vous êtes habilité à autoriser OSMF à utiliser et diffuser ces Contenus selon les conditions de notre licence. Si vous n’êtes pas habilité, vous risquez de voir votre apport effacé. (cf. alinéa b)

(b) Nous vous rappelons que OSMF n’a pas l’obligation d’inclure les Contenus de Vos contributions au Projet et qu’OSMF peut à tout moment supprimer Vos contributions. Ainsi, s’il existe des suspicions d’incompatibilité d’une quelconque donnée (empêchant donc la poursuite en toute légalité de sa diffusion) avec l’une des licences utilisées ou toute autre licence (voir modalités évoquées aux articles 3 et 4) il sera possible d’effacer cette donnée.

2. Droits concédés. Vous concédez à OSMF, dans les conditions définies aux articles 3 et 4, de manière irrévocable et perpétuelle, une licence internationale, non exclusive et non soumise aux droits patrimoniaux d’auteur, aux droits des auteurs de bases de données ou à tout autre droit, relatif à un élément du Contenu, quel que soit le support. La concession porte notamment sur une éventuelle utilisation commerciale du Contenu ainsi que sur le droit de sous-licencier l’ensemble des contributions à des tiers ou sous-traitants. Vous acceptez de ne pas user de votre droit moral à l’encontre de OSMF ou de ses sous-traitants si la loi ou les conventions vous donne un tel droit relativement aux Contenus.

3. OSMF consent à n’utiliser ou sous-licencier votre Contenu que comme partie de la base de données et seulement par le biais d’une ou des licences suivantes : ODbL 1.0 pour la base de données et DbCL 1.0 pour les contenus individuels de la base de données ; CC-BY-SA 2.0 ; ou toute autre licence libre et ouverte de même type (comme, par exemple, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) qui pourra être ponctuellement choisie par une majorité de 2/3 des contributeurs actifs parmi les membres d’OSMF.

:Un contributeur actif est défini comme suit :

::Une personne physique (utilisant un ou plusieurs comptes, agissant pour son compte ou au nom d’un tiers pouvant être une société) qui, ayant une adresse email valide dans son profil enregistré a, dans 3 des 12 derniers mois, modifié le Projet, ce qui démontre ainsi son intérêt réel et renouvelé dans le projet et qui, lorsqu’elle est sollicitée pour voter répond dans un délai maximal de 3 semaines.

4. OSMF accepte de Vous citer ou de citer le titulaire des droits d’auteur, selon Votre souhait ou celui du titulaire des droits. La citation s’effectue par le biais de la page web http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.

5. Nonobstant les cas prévus dans les Présentes, Vous conservez les droits et intérêts à agir relatifs à vos Contenus.

Limitation de responsabilité

6.1 Dans les limites permises par la loi, Vous fournissez les Contenus en l’état sans aucune garantie d’aucune sorte, expresse ou tacite, notamment sans garantie de valeur commerciale, d’adéquation à un usage ou à besoin quelconque.

6.2. En cas de responsabilité ne pouvant être limitée ou exclue par la loi, aucun préjudice particulier, indirect ou punitif, lorsque ces termes s’appliquent, ne pourra Vous être imputé ou être imputé à OSMF dans le cadre de cet Accord. Cette limitation de responsabilité s’applique même si chaque Partie était avisée de la possibilité de réalisation d’un tel dommage.

7. Divers. Cet Accord est régi par le Droit Anglais, nonobstant les règles en vigueur relatives aux conflits de Lois. Vous convenez que la Convention des Nations Unies sur les Ventes Internationales de Marchandises de 1980 est intégralement inapplicable à cet Accord. Cet Accord entre Vous et OSMF remplace et annule tout accord antérieur, qu’il soit oral, écrit, ou tacite, concernant l’objet de cet Accord.

Licence/Contributor Terms/FR

2011-03-24T13:18:10Z

Firefishy: /* OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.2.4 */ Update indenting.

Licence/Contributor Terms/FR

2011-03-24T13:17:16Z

Firefishy: Update to Contributor Terms 1.2.4

= OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.2.4 =

Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt pour la base de données géographiques du projet OpenStreetMap (« le Projet ») et pour votre volonté d’y intégrer des données et/ou tout autre contenu (collectivement « les Contenus »). Cet accord de contribution (« l’Accord ») est conclu entre vous (ci-après « Vous ») et la Fondation OpenStreetMap (« OSMF ») et a pour objectif de définir l’étendue des droits de propriété intellectuelle relatifs aux Contenus que vous déciderez de soumettre au Projet avec ce compte utilisateur. Lisez attentivement les articles suivants et si vous en acceptez les termes, cliquez sur le bouton « J’accepte » en bas de la page afin de continuer.

1. Parce que nous respectons les droits relatifs à la propriété intellectuelle de toute personne et qu’il s’avère indispensable que nous soyons à même de répondre à toute contestation de titulaire de droits de propriété intellectuelle :

(a) Votre apport de données ne doit pas porter atteinte aux droit des tiers. Dans le cas d’un apport de Contenus, Vous garantissez le fait que, à votre connaissance, Vous êtes habilité à autoriser OSMF à utiliser et diffuser ces Contenus selon les conditions de notre licence. Si vous n’êtes pas habilité, vous risquez de voir votre apport effacé. (cf. alinéa b)

(b) Nous vous rappelons que OSMF n’a pas l’obligation d’inclure les Contenus de Vos contributions au Projet et qu’OSMF peut à tout moment supprimer Vos contributions. Ainsi, s’il existe des suspicions d’incompatibilité d’une quelconque donnée (empêchant donc la poursuite en toute légalité de sa diffusion) avec l’une des licences utilisées ou toute autre licence (voir modalités évoquées aux articles 3 et 4) il sera possible d’effacer cette donnée.

2. Droits concédés. Vous concédez à OSMF, dans les conditions définies aux articles 3 et 4, de manière irrévocable et perpétuelle, une licence internationale, non exclusive et non soumise aux droits patrimoniaux d’auteur, aux droits des auteurs de bases de données ou à tout autre droit, relatif à un élément du Contenu, quel que soit le support. La concession porte notamment sur une éventuelle utilisation commerciale du Contenu ainsi que sur le droit de sous-licencier l’ensemble des contributions à des tiers ou sous-traitants. Vous acceptez de ne pas user de votre droit moral à l’encontre de OSMF ou de ses sous-traitants si la loi ou les conventions vous donne un tel droit relativement aux Contenus.

3. OSMF consent à n’utiliser ou sous-licencier votre Contenu que comme partie de la base de données et seulement par le biais d’une ou des licences suivantes : ODbL 1.0 pour la base de données et DbCL 1.0 pour les contenus individuels de la base de données ; CC-BY-SA 2.0 ; ou toute autre licence libre et ouverte de même type (comme, par exemple, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) qui pourra être ponctuellement choisie par une majorité de 2/3 des contributeurs actifs parmi les membres d’OSMF.

Un contributeur actif est défini comme suit :

Une personne physique (utilisant un ou plusieurs comptes, agissant pour son compte ou au nom d’un tiers pouvant être une société) qui, ayant une adresse email valide dans son profil enregistré a, dans 3 des 12 derniers mois, modifié le Projet, ce qui démontre ainsi son intérêt réel et renouvelé dans le projet et qui, lorsqu’elle est sollicitée pour voter répond dans un délai maximal de 3 semaines.

4. OSMF accepte de Vous citer ou de citer le titulaire des droits d’auteur, selon Votre souhait ou celui du titulaire des droits. La citation s’effectue par le biais de la page web http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.

5. Nonobstant les cas prévus dans les Présentes, Vous conservez les droits et intérêts à agir relatifs à vos Contenus.

Limitation de responsabilité

6.1 Dans les limites permises par la loi, Vous fournissez les Contenus en l’état sans aucune garantie d’aucune sorte, expresse ou tacite, notamment sans garantie de valeur commerciale, d’adéquation à un usage ou à besoin quelconque.

6.2. En cas de responsabilité ne pouvant être limitée ou exclue par la loi, aucun préjudice particulier, indirect ou punitif, lorsque ces termes s’appliquent, ne pourra Vous être imputé ou être imputé à OSMF dans le cadre de cet Accord. Cette limitation de responsabilité s’applique même si chaque Partie était avisée de la possibilité de réalisation d’un tel dommage.

7. Divers. Cet Accord est régi par le Droit Anglais, nonobstant les règles en vigueur relatives aux conflits de Lois. Vous convenez que la Convention des Nations Unies sur les Ventes Internationales de Marchandises de 1980 est intégralement inapplicable à cet Accord. Cet Accord entre Vous et OSMF remplace et annule tout accord antérieur, qu’il soit oral, écrit, ou tacite, concernant l’objet de cet Accord.

Licence/Contributor Terms

2011-03-01T09:40:35Z

Firefishy: Update to Contributor Terms 1.2.4

''This is a page is presented to contributors when they register. For legal reasons, this must be in [[License/Contributor Terms/FR|French]] and [[License/Contributor Terms/IT|Italian]] as well as English. Other informal guidance versions will be added as resources permit. It does not have to be the sole terms under which contributions are made, one off terms can be agreed with bulk contributors provided there is no clash with our principles in general and ODbL in particular.''

* ''[[License/Contributor Terms/FR|France-French]] version.''
* ''[[License/Contributor Terms/IT|Italy-Italian]] version.''
* ''[[License/Contributor Terms/DE|Deutsch-German]] version.'' (unofficial)
* ''[[osm:Open Database License/Contributor Terms|unofficial translations]] are available on the OSM wiki.''

''This paragraph, and anything preceding it, is not part of the terms, which now follow:''

= OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.2.4 =

Thank you for your interest in contributing data and/or any other content (collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the “Project”). This contributor agreement (the “Agreement”) is made between you (“You”) and The OpenStreetMap Foundation (“OSMF”) and clarifies the intellectual property rights in any Contents that You choose to submit to the Project in this user account. Please read the following terms and conditions carefully and click either the "Accept" or "Decline" button at the bottom to continue.

1. We respect the intellectual property rights of others and we need to be able to respond to any objections by intellectual property owners. This means that:

(a) Your contribution of data should not infringe the intellectual property rights of anyone else. If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. If You do not have that right, You risk having Your contribution deleted (see below).

(b) Please note that OSMF does not have to include Contents You contribute in the Project, and may remove Your contributions from the Project at any time. For example, if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it), with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may delete that data.

===Rights Granted===

2. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents.

3. OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors.

:An "active contributor" is defined as:
::a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any three calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds to a request to vote within 3 weeks.

4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.

5. Except as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents.

===Limitation of Liability===

6.1 To the extent permitted by applicable law, You provide the Contents “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including without limitation any warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or otherwise.

6.2 Subject to any liability that may not be excluded or limited by law, neither You nor OSMF shall be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, or exemplary damages under this Agreement, however caused and under any theory of liability. This exclusion applies even if either party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

===Miscellaneous===

7. This Agreement shall be governed by English law without regard to principles of conflict of law. You agree that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) is hereby excluded in its entirety from application to this Agreement. In the event of invalidity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties agree that such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. This is the entire agreement between You and OSMF which supersedes any prior agreement, whether written, oral or other, relating to the subject matter of this agreement.

[Accept Button] [Decline Button]

Working Group Minutes

2011-02-22T19:53:48Z

Firefishy: /* 2011 (latest first) */ Add latest minutes.

Working Group Minutes

2011-02-16T13:00:16Z

Firefishy: /* 2011 (latest first) */ Add 2011-02-15 draft.

Working Group Minutes

2011-02-15T19:18:18Z

Firefishy: /* 2011 (latest first) */ Add recent minutes

File:TWGmeetingsummary2011-01-26.pdf

2011-02-03T10:35:34Z

Firefishy:

Working Group Minutes

2011-02-03T10:35:15Z

Firefishy: /* Technical Working Group (sysadmins) */ Add TWGmeetingsummary2011-01-26.pdf

File:20110118 LWG Meeting Minutes.pdf

2011-02-01T20:42:03Z

Firefishy:

Working Group Minutes

2011-01-11T17:46:12Z

Firefishy: /* 2011 (latest first) */ Fix date.

Working Groups

2011-01-06T15:43:28Z

Firefishy: /* Technical Working Group */ Update details.

'''Working Groups''' are proving an effective way for the Foundation to support OSM in specific areas. They are a relatively new to the Foundation and some are currently more active than others. Working Groups generally consist of at least one member of the board and general OSMF volunteer members. This page tells you what each group does and who are its members.

==[[Articles Working Group]]==

* Review the OSMF Articles of Association (effectively the OSMF consititution) and come up with issues that need to be addressed.

Members:
* Andy Robinson
* Additional members will be solicited from OSMF membership

You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:articles@osmfoundation.org articles@osmfoundation.org]

==[[Licensing Working Group]]==

* Issues relating the the current license for OSM data
* Migrating to a new license

Members:

* Steve Coast (OSMF Board)
* Grant Slater (Technical team representative)
* Jordan Hatcher (Invited expert from Open Data Commons)
* Michael Collinson (Group Chairman)
* Henk Hoff (OSMF Board)
* Matt Amos
* Ulf Möller
* Richard Weait

You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:legal@osmfoundation.org legal@osmfoundation.org]

You can subscribe to the OSM legal-talk mailing list at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

==[[Data Working Group]]==

* Resolution of issues in copyright violation, disputes, vandalism, and bots, beyond the normal means of the community.
* Helping to set policy on data.

Members:

* Mikel Maron (Group Chairman, OSMF Board)
* Andy Robinson
* Grant Slater
* Matt Amos
* Tom Hughes
* Dave Stubbs
* Frederik Ramm
* Steve Coast (OSMF Board)
* Richard Weait

You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:data@osmfoundation.org data@osmfoundation.org]

==[[Technical Working Group]]==

* Planning and maintenance of the OSM API and servers.

Members:

* Tom Hughes
* Grant Slater
* Jon Burgess
* Matt Amos
* Andy Allan
* Emilie Laffray

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

[[Working_Group_Minutes#Technical_Working_Group_.28sysadmins.29|Meeting Summary]]

You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:sysadmins@osmfoundation.org sysadmins@osmfoundation.org]

==[[Communication Working Group]]==

* Initial focus on communication between the OSMF, working gr members and the public
* Improve flow of information, and effectiveness of channels on and around osmfoundation.org
* Analyse other community communication channels. Identify issues and areas for improvement

Members:

* Oliver Kühn (OSMF Board)
* Elimie Laffray (OSMF Board)
* [[User:Harry Wood|Harry Wood]]
* Richard Weait

You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:communications@osmfoundation.org communications@osmfoundation.org]

==[[StateoftheMap Organizing Committee]]==

The StateoftheMap Organzing Committee are responsible for the organization and execution of the 2010 StateoftheMap conference. You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:team@stateofthemap.org team@stateofthemap.org]

The organising committee meets every week on a Wednesday at 8pm GMT via Skype.

2010 Members:

* Henk Hoff skype:toffehoff (OSMF Board, Chair)
* Martijn van Exel skype:mvexel
* Floris Looijesteijn skype:floris1978
* Arjan Spigt skype:arjanspigt
* Hurricane McEwen skype:hurricanemcewen
* Nick Black skype:nickb_sk
* Bojan Sobocan skype:bojansobocan
* Will King skype:geodatasolutions
* Emilie Laffray skype:melaskia
* Richard Weait skype:rweait
* Steve Coast (OSMF Board) skype:stevecoast
* Iván Sánchez Ortega skype:ivansanchezortega

2009 Members:

* [mailto:nick@stateofthemap.org Nick Black] – Chairman, Speakers & Program
* [mailto:stevec@osmfoundation.org Steve Coast] – Sponsorship, OSM-F Board
* [mailto:arjan@stateofthemap.org Arjan Spigt] – Sponsorship
* [mailto:andy@osmfoundation.org Andy Robinson], OSM-F Board
* [mailto:treasurer@openstreetmap.org Etienne]
* [mailto:floris@stateofthemap.org Floris Looijesteijn] – Venues, Local Organizing Team
* [mailto:henk@stateofthemap.org Henk Hoff] – Delegate Registration, Local Organizing Team, OSM-F Board
* [mailto:martijn@geodan.nl Martijn van Exel ]- Webmaster, Local Organzing Team
* [mailto:bojan@stateofthemap.org Bojan Sobocan] – Venues, Local Organzing Team
* [mailto:membership@openstreetmap.org Mike Collinson] – OSM-F Board
* [mailto:mikel_maron@yahoo.com Mikel Maron] – OSM-F Board

==[[Local Chapters Working Group]]==

The Local Chapters Working Group are responsible for running the process of setting up federated OSM-Foundation local groups. [http://www.blacksworld.net/blog/2008/12/11/osm-f-update-local-chapters-are-coming/ More]. The group’s members are:

* [mailto:henk.hoff@osmfoundation.org Henk Hoff] – OSM-F Board
* [mailto:simone@osmfoundation.org Simone Cortesi] – OSM-F Board
* [mailto:mikel_maron@yahoo.com Mikel Maron]
* [mailto:cragg.nilson@gmail.com Cragg Nilson]
* John Smith
* [mailto:ulf@osmfoundation.org Ulf Möller]

You can get in touch with the whole team at: [mailto:local@osmfoundation.org local@osmfoundation.org]

You can subscribe to the OSMF Local-chapters mailing list at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters

==[[Strategy Working Group]]==

The Strategy Working Group will look at fund-raising, and long term planning and strategy.

The group's members are:

* Mikel Maron (Group chairman, OSMF Board)
* ...

You can subscribe to the OSMF strategy mailing list at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/strategic

[[Category:Working Groups]]

File:TWGmeetingsummary2010-11-11.pdf

2010-12-20T16:00:49Z

Firefishy:

Working Group Minutes

2010-12-20T15:52:06Z

Firefishy: /* Technical Working Group (sysadmins) */ Add TWGmeetingsummary2010-11-11.pdf

Monthly Board Meetings

2010-12-16T18:01:05Z

Firefishy: /* 2010 */ remove google apps domain from link.

Here is a downloadable list of approved minutes of past board meetings. Board meetings are generally held once per month via teleconference.

In order that members are more quickly informed of board meeting discussion and decisions, we are now making draft “Unapproved” minutes available. These will be formally voted on at the next board meeting and are subject to change.

=2010=

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! width=30% | Date
! Minutes


|-
| 2010-12-11/12
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=d38xqz5_6fj2bcdcm OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-12-11/12]
|-
| 2010-10-02
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=d38xqz5_3djsz2sc4 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-10-02] (draft)
|-
| 2010-09-10
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd8ngscc_15dnpz9sq3 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-09-10] (draft)
|-
| 2010-08-19
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_78hrs25mgt OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-08-19] (draft)
|-
| 2010-08-10
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_75n79q2ggz OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-08-10]
|-
| 2010-06-10
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_69gqt39qc3 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-06-10]
|-
| 2010-05-27
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_65gtrcqm84 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-05-27]
|-
| 2010-04-22
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_58gstwx3d7 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-04-22]
|-
| 2010-03-25
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_53hmd6wrcz OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-03-25]
|-
| 2010-02-25
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_47fwn7f6qv OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2010-02-25]
|-
| 2010-01-23/24
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_39ddcqg5c6 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes Amsterdam 2010-01-23/24]
|-
|}

=2009=

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! width=30% | Date
! Minutes
|-
| 2009-12-22
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_34dpwp3nfg OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-12-22]
|-
| 2009-11-12
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_24fks9cpdq OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-11-12]
|-
| 2009-10-13
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_13hkg5mnhj OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-10-13]
|-
| 2009-09-15
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgj9hzhf_0cxq38mf5 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-09-15]
|-
| 2009-08-22
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcs6phhk_5f9r22wcf OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-08-22]
|-
| 2009-07-09
| [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcs6phhk_2hn2xstg3 OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-07-09]
|-
| 2009-06-09
| [[Media:20090609.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-06-09]]
|-
| 2009-05-12
| [[Media:20090512.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-05-12]]
|-
| 2009-04-14
| [[Media:20090414.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-04-14]]
|-
| 2009-02-25
| [[Media:20090225.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2009-02-25]]
|-
| 2009-01-24
| [[Media:20090124.pdf|OSMF Board Workshop – Woking – Minutes 2009-01-24/25]]
|-
|}

=2008=

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! width=30% | Date
! Minutes
|-
| 2008-12-23
| [[Media:20081223.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-12-23]]
|-
| 2008-11-25
| [[Media:20081125.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-11-25]]
|-
| 2008-10-28
| [[Media:20081028_meeting_minutes.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-10-28]]
|-
| 2008-09-24
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080924.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-09-24]]
|-
| 2008-08-30
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080830.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-08-30]]
|-
| 2008-07-23
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080723.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-07-23]]
|-
| 2008-06-18
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080618.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-06-18]]
|-
| 2008-05-22
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080522.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-05-22]]
|-
| 2008-04-24
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080424.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-04-24]]
|-
| 2008-03-20
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080320.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-03-20]]
|-
| 2008-02-21
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20080221.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-02-21]]
|-
| 2008-01-17
| [[Media:20080117_meeting_minutes.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2008-01-17]]
|-
|}

=2007=

{| width=570px class=wikitable
|-
! width=30% | Date
! Minutes
|-
| 2007-12-13
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20071213.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2007-12-13]]
|-
| 2007-11-15
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20071115.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2007-11-15]]
|-
| 2007-10-11
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20071011.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2007-10-11]]
|-
| 2007-09-13
| [[Media:osmf_boardminutes_20070913.pdf|OSMF Board Meeting Minutes 2007-09-13]]
|-
|}

[[Category:Minutes]]

Licence/Contributor Terms

2010-12-15T03:44:48Z

Firefishy: Add link to 1.2.2 working draft

''This page is presented to contributors when they register. It does not have to be the sole terms under which contributions are made, one-off terms can be agreed with bulk contributors provided there is no clash with our principles in general and ODbL in particular.''

''For legal reasons, this must be in [[License/Contributor Terms/FR|French]] and [[License/Contributor Terms/IT|Italian]] as well as English. Other informal guidance versions will be added as resources permit.''

* ''[[License/Contributor Terms/FR|France-French]] version.''
* ''[[License/Contributor Terms/IT|Italy-Italian]] version.''
* ''[[osm:DE:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms|Deutsch-German]] version.'' (unofficial)
* ''[[osm:Open Database License/Contributor Terms|unofficial translations]] are available on the OSM wiki.''

'''[http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb Working Draft of Contributor Terms Version 1.2.2]'''

= OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.0 =

Thank you for your interest in contributing data and/or any other content (collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the “Project”). This contributor agreement (the “Agreement”) is made between you (“You”) and The OpenStreetMap Foundation (“OSMF”) and clarifies the intellectual property rights in any Contents that You choose to submit to the Project. Please read the following terms and conditions carefully and click either the "Accept" or "Decline" button at the bottom to continue.

1. You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements). You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below.

2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents.

3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors.

An "active contributor" is defined as:

:a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and
:has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks.

4. At Your or the copyright holder’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution].

5. Except as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents.

'''Limitation of Liability'''

6.1 To the extent permitted by applicable law, except as provided above in Section 1, You provide the Contents “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including without limitation any warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or otherwise.

6.2 Subject to any liability that may not be excluded or limited by law, neither You nor OSMF shall be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, or exemplary damages under this Agreement, however caused and under any theory of liability. This exclusion applies even if either party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

7. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed by English law without regard to principles of conflict of law. You agree that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) is hereby excluded in its entirety from application to this Agreement. In the event of invalidity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties agree that such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. This is the entire agreement between You and OSMF which supersedes any prior agreement, whether written or oral, relating to the subject matter of this agreement.

[Accept Button] [Decline Button]

DMCA Notice

2010-12-08T01:03:42Z

Firefishy: Add Redirect

#Redirect [[Digital Millenium Copyright Act Notice]]

DMCA

2010-12-08T01:03:24Z

Firefishy: Add redirect

#Redirect [[Digital Millenium Copyright Act Notice]]

Digital Millenium Copyright Act Notice

2010-12-08T01:02:59Z

Firefishy: Add DMCA page. Better suited here.

== Digital Millennium Copyright Act ==

===(a) Notification of Infringement===
It is OSMF’s policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). In addition, we will promptly terminate without notice the accounts of those determined by us to be "repeat infringers". If you are a copyright owner or an agent thereof, and believe that any User Submission or other Non-OSMF Content infringes upon your copyrights, you may submit a notification pursuant to the DMCA by providing our Copyright Agent designated below with the following information in writing (see 17 U.S.C § 512(c)(3) or consult your own legal counsel to confirm these requirements):
# A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed;
# Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works on the Site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works from the Site;
# Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit OSMF to locate the material;
# Information reasonably sufficient to permit OSMF to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted;
# A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
# A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Upon removing any allegedly infringing material, OSMF will notify the alleged infringer of such takedown.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability.

===(b) Counter Notification===
If you elect to send our Copyright Agent a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication that includes the following (please consult your legal counsel or See 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):
# A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber;
# Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;
# A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; and
# The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which OSMF may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

Upon receiving a DMCA-compliant counter notice, OSMF will provide the party that gave notice of infringement a copy of the counter notice and inform that party that OSMF will restore the material in 10 business days. OSMF will then reinstate the removed material not less than 10, but no more than 14, business days unless it first receives notice from the party that filed the initial notice that such party has filed a court action against the alleged infringer.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.

'''(c) Designated Copyright Agent. OSMF’s Designated Copyright Agent to receive notifications and counter-notifications of claimed infringement can be reached as follows:'''

Steve Coast, Cloudmade, 1370 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA, 94025,

email: steve@asklater.com, telephone: (415) 699-9711

Licence and Legal FAQ/OSMF Vote

2010-12-07T20:31:02Z

Firefishy: Add intro page

==OSMF Statement==

In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a [http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf proposal] to change the OpenStreetMap geodata license. ''The vote is now over. 55% of eligible members have voted, and 89% of those who voted have voted yes. So almost 49% of all eligible members have expressed their agreement to ODbL, and 6% have expressed their disagreement. [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000751.html Detailed results]. ''

The community created 2 pages, which have been archived here:

* [[License/OSMF_Vote/Why You Should Vote Yes|Why You Should Vote Yes]]
* [[License/OSMF_Vote/Why You Should Vote No|Why You Should Vote No]]

===Also see===
* [[OSM:Open Data License/Why You Should Relicense|Why You Should Relicense]]
* [[OSM:Open Data License/Why You Should Decline|Why You Should Decline]]

Working Group Minutes

2010-12-07T19:16:19Z

Firefishy: /* 2010 (latest first) */ Add latest minutes.

Talk:Licence and Legal FAQ/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No

2010-12-06T21:39:01Z

Firefishy: Fix internal talk link.

==Dispute tag==
The editors of the 'No' page are not lawyers, and through their own "university of life" opinions are spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the license change. Much of it is simply wrong. [[OSM:User:Steve|Steve]] 21:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:I do not believe that it is appropriate to flag the whole page with 'disputed'. I suggest that the LWG has the option to add a rebuttal to each comment - people can then make their own mind up about the actual facts. I suggest that we limit each section to one statement and one rebuttal only. I propose that we remove the 'disputed' tag in 24 hours. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

: I propose that the reply (or rebuttal) should be on the main page - I just don't think people will tend to juump backwards and forwards between the article and the talk page. Any objections? [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:: +1 I strongly agree. For both Yes and No pages. --[[OSM:User:Firefishy|firefishy]] 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

::The dispute flag has been removed, however there is still an 'edit war' going with people adding a removing rebuttals on the page. Personally I still vote for a single 'official' rebuttal from the Licensing Working Group being allowed on the No page. I say this because I think it is unreasonable for the LWG not to have the right of reply after all the work that they have done. If anyone has a problem with the rebuttal then that can be discussed on this talk page or by email. Any comments? [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I have reinstated an official 'reply' from Matt (which I assume is an official reply from the Licensing Working Group) to one of the statements. I have not reinstated Tom's replies because I don't believe that he is a member of the working group. If people disagree with this appproach then lets discuss it here or on the foundation email list - personaly I would prefer to discuss it here to avoid overloading the email list. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 05:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
:::: And I've removed it. The LWG has prepared their case and presented it in the license change proposal. This page comprises personal statements by those that make a case against. As it states at the top of the page, and in accordance with normal wiki etiquette, discussion should be on this talk page. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 10:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::80n, you seem to be the only person who is resisting 'replies' on the main page and removing comments by anyone who disagrees with you. It is perfectly normal for wikipedia pages to contain rebuttals of this sort - indeed it is a expected in a balanced article. Note that I am only suggesting that there should only be a single short 'official' response from the LWG and not a general 'open season'. The talk page on a wiki is normally for a 'meta conversation' about the subject, not part of the main subject. Possibly we should change the intro of the article to match the discussion we are having on the talk page that the reply should be on the main page - or possibly reinstate the 'disputed' flag which would be an admission of failure. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'm opposed to anyone editing the sections that are signed by me, yes. Others can police their own sections, I can't speak for them. The Yes and No pages are not discussion pages they were placed there for personal statements. If there are factual inaccuracies then let's hear them and get the personal statements corrected. If it's just argumental comments they belong here on the talk page. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 10:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

: In the interests of moving forward I have moved all comments to the talk page and provided a clear link from the main page to the relevant section of the talk page. I have added a 'disputed' note to the link if there is strong evidence that the claim is not factually accurate. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 11:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
:: Thank you Peter, this works for me. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 11:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

==Signing claims?==
Should these claims that are being made (both for and against the license) be signed by the person making the claim - or indeed by more people if they agree with the statement? [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
: +1 --[[OSM:User:Firefishy|firefishy]] 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

::We can reverse engineer signatures onto the sections from a quick look at the history tab - I suggest we do that unless there is disagreement, in which case we should discuss it further. 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

::: Done --[[OSM:User:Firefishy|firefishy]] 22:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:::: Thanks. However I will remove the 'un-signed' phrase from the text to avoid any suggestion that comments to date have deliberately not been signed. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

==Comments on individual claims==

===Cannot import CC BY-SA licensed data===

'''REPLY:''' Part of the process to come after the OSMF Membership accepting the ODbL proposal is for the [[OSM:Licensing Working Group]] to assist in getting the [[OSM:Import/Catalogue#Community_Imports|Community Imports]] cleared under ODbL. The ODbL retains the key principals of CC-by-SA (Sharealike and Attribution) Disclosure: I am a Member of [[OSM:Licensing Working Group]] --[[OSM:User:Firefishy|firefishy]] 13:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:I have added the 'disputed' tag to this claim purely because of the phrase 'will' - It seems to me that we have a good chance of getting Creative Commons to support the release of data on the appropriate CC0 license in Australia and elsewhere, and as such I think it is likely that we will be able to retain many of the data sources. I am not an expert in this, hence setting up a wiki page where it can be discussed further. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 11:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

===OSM's Contributor Terms are not compatible with ODbL===
I am interested in exploring this one. Clearly the resulting DB is published as ODbL and can't (or I hope won't) contain additional restrictions about what can be done with the date. One version of ODbL allowed notices about further resrictions to be added. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 11:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
: The Contributor Terms require that the contributor grants the OSMF some rights. If I find a random ODbL licensed dataset somewhere I can only share that under the same terms that I recieved it, namely ODbL. I cannot add it to OSM because that requires me to grant OSMF rights that I don't have myself. The outcome is that nobody (except the original licensee) can contribute ODbL data to OSM.

: Let's take a concrete example. Suppose that ITO, for example, takes a copy of planet.osm, adds some NAPTAN data to it and publishes planet+naptan.osm under the ODbL. If ITO chooses not to agree the the Contributor Terms and chooses not contribute it back to OSM then it cannot be incorporated back into OSM. Nobody else can do it because they can't grant OSMF rights that they do not have. This totally breaks the principle of share alike that is so important to us all.

: It's worrying to me that this scenario has only become apparent in the last couple of days, despite considerable scrutiny of the license proposal by quite a few people. I'm worried that there may be other equally undiscovered flaws in the license proposal, particularly in the Contributor Terms.

: So far I have not seen any explanation or comment at all from the LWG about this scenario, so I think it is new and unexpected to them as well. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 11:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

::+1 --[[OSM:User:DiverCTH|DiverCTH]] 06:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::+1 Thanks, that is indeed a worrying and probably a common scenario. It is not worse than what e.g. the FSF does (they also require assinging of copyright, therefore making it impossible to import and GNU GPL code by others than the copyright holders), but it should at least be discussed and acknowledged. --[[OSM:User:Spaetz|spaetz]] 13:16, 23 August 2010 (BST)

: For me, this was the most troubling part of the proposal. But I now realise this is not an issue with the ODbL itself, which remains in my opinion an excellent license for anyone requiring attribution and/or share-alike. So I'm happy for my submissions and the rest of OSM to be ODbL-licensed (though I'd be okay with public domain too). And I have no problem with data sources offering up their data under the ODbL if they feel public domain is too permissive.

: The only issue here is with OSM's proposed Contributor Terms. Under them, contributors seem only to be able to import data which is either their own, or essentially public domain. If that's too strict, the terms can always be changed at a later time, and because it doesn't affect already-contributed data it's much simpler than a change of the OSM license.

: Anyway, the terms may be quite appropriate for most individual contributors. Any imports of data not in the public domain could perhaps be handled or merely approved by the [[OSM:Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group]], to permit certain data into OSM without the licensor having to accept the Contributor Terms at all. As long as OSM only distributed its database under the ODbL, I believe any ODbL-licensed databases could be imported in this way without special permissions from licensors. (Could this also be true for CC-BY?)

: If the OSM database license must change again in the future, the working group would have the task of reviewing the licenses of, or renegotiating with licensors for, any such data sources, but it should have records of who/what they are. That would avoid (potentially inactive, or unwilling) individual contributors from having that burden, which is a major part of the current predicament. --[[OSM:User:StevenChamberlain|StevenChamberlain]] 06:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

=== The OSM Foundation will have unlimited rights to all your data ===
The following rebuttal is proposed for the claim that 'The OSM Foundation will own all your data'.

'''REPLY''': Which is why, if you read the contributor terms, it's not only a vote of the OSMF membership, but also "active contributors". This massively raises the amount of effort necessary for any organisation to attempt a take-over of OSM's data. --[[OSM:User:Matt|Matt]] 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

: It massively raises the number of edit bots that are required. That's all. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

: I feel that this particular comment is badly phrases - the OSMF will not 'own' your data - it is extremely clear that the contributor will still 'own' their date and are only licensing it. It also claims that it would be 'relatively easy for a large organisation to take over OSMF' - again it would be impossible for a large company to create enough users to change the license as proposed by the Contributor terms. I believe that a rebuttal on the main page is appropriate. See dispute section above for further discussion of the general point of inclusion of a rebuttal on the No page. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:: What rights to the data will the OSMF ''not'' have? If you have full rights to something then you own it. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 10:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

::: The claim clearly states that the OSMF will 'own' the data and this is just not true because 'ownership' is different from 'rights' and the contributor has only given on-exclusive rights to the OSMF on certain conditions and has retained rights of ownership to do anything else they choose to do with the data as they see fit. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 10:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

::::The wording of the claim has now been adjusted by the original author to change the word'own' to 'have unlimited rights'. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 11:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

::: The OSMF will not have the rights to put the data under a closed license, as the contributor terms restrict the relicensing powers to an open and free license. That is a strong enough restriction to say OSMF owns the data or has unlimited rights is incorrect. [[OSM:User:Amm|amm]] 20:35 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am having doubts over assigning unlimited rights over contributions to any group of people. This too much like "tyranny by majority" and certainly not the practice with software and CC licenses AFAIK. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 21:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
: +1 --[[OSM:User:DiverCTH|DiverCTH]] 07:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
: I also think the unlimited rights assignment is unnecessary. If data is contributed under the understanding that the licence is ODbL, then only the rights sufficient for ODbL should be passed on. If implementing the ODbL requires the licensor to have more rights, then this is probably a flaw in the ODbL and should be fixed.
: Addressing the next clause: I think new data should be submitted only for distribution under the terms of the ODbL (plus data licence to account for some places allowing rights to the data). There is sufficient provision in the ODbL for upgrade to a future version of the licence. The ability to enact a licence change to something as broad and undefined as a “free and open” licence without the original contributor’s say in the matter just because they haven’t contributed and/or are not contactable for a period of time (and exceedingly short time periods at that) is, very much like the tyranny described above.
: [[OSM:User:Sward|Sward]] 00:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

===The current license is not broken===
Personally I believe it is irrefutably proved that it is 'broken' even by Creative Commons themselves. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 11:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:Maybe not broken, but certainly I'd argue the current license is unsuitable. (In fact I think I argued it at the first OSM mapping party on the Isle of Wight in 2006). In 2007 I spent hundreds of hours tracing Yahoo imagery of Baghdad. I have no interest in Baghdad except that there was no other online maps with good coverage, and I thought it would be good publicity for OSM to have the best maps available. A short while later one of the major UK TV networks was interetsed in using OSM maps, but wanted to do a mashup with some Google data. Due to our licence conditions they dropped the idea of using our maps.[http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-February/011542.html][[OSM:User:Dmgroom|Dmgroom]] 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::David, you subsequently offered to put the data into the public domain [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-February/011546.html]. They still didn't use it, so it's likely that it wasn't the license that was the problem in this case. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 20:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
::: True, but I believe by that time the TV company had either lost the will to use OSM maps, or simply the deadline on the relevant news item thay wanted to use it on had passed. [[OSM:User:Dmgroom|Dmgroom]] 13:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

===ODbL is unproven===
Yes it is, unfortunately there is not a proven solution available and we know that the current license is inappropriate. As such it is the least-worst-license to choose. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 11:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

: Is OSM(F) going to be the first major user of ODbL? (I understand it has been quite big in the discussions and changes). Who else is using ODbL and who might start using it after OSM? Someone has to step forward first. - [[OSM:User:LastGrape|LastGrape/Gregory]] 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

===ODbL licensed data can be reverse engineered===
See original post. Jordan (ODbL Author and Lawyer) + OSM Legal council say that it is protected. Non-lawyer claims that it isn't protected. Therefore question is disputed. -- [[OSM:User:Firefishy|Firefishy]] 17:45, 28 August 2010 (BST)

===Who owns OSM? You!===
I agree with the first two (translated) paragraphs. I commented under [[OSM:#The OSM Foundation will have unlimited rights to all your data]]: The ability to enact a licence change to something as broad and undefined as a “free and open” licence without the original contributor’s say in the matter just because they haven’t contributed and/or are not contactable for a period of time (and exceedingly short time periods at that) is, very much like the tyranny described above. —[[OSM:User:Sward|Sward]] 00:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

''Add your comments here''. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 11:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:Another issue is how to classify a contributor who is still interested in the project, but no longer making large contributions because their area of interest is "complete". Here are some of the ambiguities that I feel need to be addressed:

:#What constitutes an "active contributor"? Is touching a single node every ''N'' days sufficient? What about simply logging into Potlatch?
:#Will new users be made aware of this controversy? I was accused of WIKI-vandalism when I attempted to add a link from the "Who Owns OSM" portion of the FAQ to this discussion.
:#What (if any) mechanism will the OSMF use to contact original contributors if they are "inactive".
:#What (if any) mechanism is in place for determining which bulk imported data sources have to be removed because the new contributor terms & license are incompatible with the original copyright-holder's license?
:#What (if any) mechanism is in place to ensure that as many contributors are polled as to whether they agree to the license change or not?
:#How can/will a fair election be conducted when not all contributors are OSMF members?
:#What (if any) outreach will be made to non-english-speaking contributors? How much effort will go into ensuring their concerns are addressed?

:Finally, I feel that the OSMF leadership, and the LWG in particular have gotten into an one-size-fits all mindset when it comes to communication. The decision to push ahead with the transition without polling the existing contributor-base is arrogant at best and borderline-criminal at worse (see point 4 above). Some of the comments to my [http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DiverCTH/diary/10646 resignation announcement] are reminiscent of the [http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/ Beware the Leopard] sketch in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_%28novel%29 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy].
--[[OSM:User:DiverCTH|DiverCTH]] 04:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

===Contributor Terms can be changed===

=== Incomplete History for Split Ways ===
It is possible to reconstruct the original contributor in almost all cases, because when a way is split, it still reuses the old nodes. Thus one has to look at all ways a certain node has been part of during its existence.

A larger problem exists when a user deletes a way and reuploads a new one at the original position. AFAIK there is at least one user who seems to do this frequently for his username to be at the top of the history. --[[OSM:User:Schuetzm|Schuetzm]] 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
: Good luck with that. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:There is no such a problem, we can easily reset every edit of an user, if we also want to remove derivatives we can just reset the ways, nodes and relations to the version number before the given user did edits. --[[OSM:User:Bürste|Bürste]] 12:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:We could, in theory, recreate everything from the changesets. There are *only* 3 million or so. It would take a while, but might be doable.
:There are other potential issues however; what if user A creates a node, X; some months later user B deletes all of the tags, and moves node X from somewhere else to re-use it as part of a completely separate way, along with several other nodes. Some months later user C adds node X to another way - which intersects with the way B created. User B doesn't choose to re-licence, users A & C do. The node is rolled-back to v1 - which is some miles away - and e.g. tagged as a shop. The way that user B created is removed, but the way that user C created presumably still contains node X. That isn't ideal, nor is removing nodes from the way user C created (could end up with one or zero node ways). [[OSM:User:Richard B|Richard B]] 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:: Recreating the data from changesets will not work. You cannot tell that a way has been split. The changeset will just show that a way previously owned by user x has been edited by user y and now has a few less nodes. At the same time a new way will also appear made up of *some* of those missing nodes and added by user y. Any watertight algorithm would have to be so conservative that you'd probably not be left with much data at the end of it. [[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 20:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

===Impact on Transitioning to ODbL If Significant Minority "No" Vote===
OSM is going to lose data for sure, for a pretty much unclear benefit from a new license. That is the only thing guaranteed by the move.
And in addition the whole transition makes people move away from OSM and especially from any OSMF-related project. Trust is important, and now OSMF is gambling with its credibility :-( --[[OSM:User:Amai|amai]] 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting that at the [[OSM:SotM 2010 session: License Working Group]], the ''only'' issues which anybody seemed to be raising were these speculative "what if" scenarios about losing data. When given an opportunity to question the people on stage (license working group) nobody actually had anything to say against the license itself. At this stage we don't know how much data would be lost. We have to ask contributors. It's an early step in the process. Later on we can take a look and see how much data is owned by people who are saying "no". The next step then is not set in stone. Maybe the next step will be to drop the whole idea and go back to the drawing board for another couple of years (By the way, that's how long people have spent in meetings with lawyers discussing this, and figuring out the right license for OpenStreetMap) I hope we can have an informed debate, based on people's real opinions of the license. Since ODbL is a positive step for OpenStreetMap, people should say "yes". Some people are going to say "no" for various reasons. We have to face that sad fact. I hope people don't say "no" because they're worried about how many people are going to say "no". That way we'll never really get to assess the situation, and make an informed decision. -- [[OSM:User:Harry Wood|Harry Wood]] 15:29, 23 August 2010 (BST)

: Saying no is anyway the safe bet. Data does not get lost and all options remain valid. And there is dataloss upcoming, but I guess nominating my dozens of ways is the smallest part only... --[[OSM:User:Amai|amai]] 18:11, 23 August 2010 (BST)

:: The thing is, the whole "voting no" issue seems to have been "solved" by simply not offering the "No" choice to the user (at least not at this stage, I'm not sure if it is maybe going to be presented to the users at some point in the future). And I agree with Harrys point here (although from somewhat different angle this time) - not offering it will make sure "we'll never really get to assess the situation, and make an informed decision". --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 18:26, 23 August 2010 (BST)

===Fundamental flaw in voting: How to treat non voters===
Firstly, there is no voting for general public (OSM contributors). The vote this page talks about was for OSMF members only, and it ended last year with [[OSM:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan/OSMF_Vote_Email|votes in favor of ODbL]]. What is [[OSM:Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan|currently happening]] is asking new contributors to accept the new licence. Very soon now, existing contributors would be asked to relicense their data too. Those who do not (or are not able to), will have their data removed from current OSM map. While I do not think that those who left or don't care (anymore) are '''majority''' as you believe, [[OSM:Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan|removing their contributions]] (and of all who edited same nodes/ways after them) would still probably be too great damage (IMHO). But that call for relicensing is not a vote. However, if the amount of data to be lost is decided to be too big (and what constitutes "too big" is still undefined [[OSM:http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000610.html despite efforts to establish that limit beforehand]]), the move to ODbL will be aborted [[OSM:http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000615.html or so am I led to believe]] --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

===Fundamental imbalance in voting: New contributors, forced to accept ODbL will eventually outnumber CC-BY-SA contributors===
Majorities don't matter for the current license change, as data can only be re-licensed by the contributor who created it. No one, not even a 99% majority, has the right to make this decision in your place. --[[OSM:User:Tordanik|Tordanik]] 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This argument is simply a lie. New contributors don't have a vote in the current license changeover. --[[OSM:User:Cartinus|Cartinus]] 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

: [[OSM:User:Cartinus|Cartinus]], you seem to be misinformed. There is '''no voting''' for OSM contributors. The one that was (and ended last year) was for [[OSM:Foundation#Membership|OSMF members]] '''only''' (see [[License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Fundamental_flaw_in_voting:_How_to_treat_non_voters|here]]).
: Also you seem to misunderstand term "re-licensed" which [[OSM:User:Tordanik|Tordanik]] is talking about. You have to '''have previous contributions''' under old licence to be able to make re-licensing choice, and new users by definition don't have data licensed under CC-BY-SA. And old users (when time comes [[OSM:Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28as_soon_as_technical_process_complete.29|soon]]) will be able to make a choice not to relicense their changes under ODbL. In that case, their contributions will be removed from ODbL dataset, but anybody could still continue to use it under CC-BY-SA (just probably '''not''' on infrastructure OSMF is paying for).
: While I'm against move to ODbL and new contributor terms (you can see [[OSM:User:Mnalis#Licensing_issues|my user page]] for details), I do not agree with all [[OSM:User:DiverCTH|DiverCTH]] says here. Firstly, I do not agree that OSMF is trying to hide the change. I mean, [[OSM:http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License Find out more about OpenStreetMap's upcoming license change]] link is on top of '''EVERY''' wiki page, it can hardly be missed! Secondly, there is no voting (as mentioned above). Thirdly, there is limit to what (and how) OSMF might change licence (although it really [[OSM:User_talk:Mnalis#Clarification_on_the_new_contributor_terms|should be improved greatly]]). The FUD will not help convince users that direction OSMF is taking is wrong. Please don't do that. The only chance we have of convincing users to stop it is by being sincere and pointing out real problems. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:: No I am very well informed, it is just you drawing the wrong conclusions. There _will be_ a question asked about the relicensing of the current data. (You might not want to call that a vote, but it is.) This question will be posed to the people who participated _before_ the _dual_ licensing. So whether the people who have dual licensed their data outnumber the people who joined before is completely irrelevant. Therefor the "Fundamental imbalance" is complete FUD. (And I make this argument even though I don't like the ODbL at all.) --[[OSM:User:Cartinus|Cartinus]] 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. Maybe you should watch the indents: I didn't reply to Tordanik.

::: Oh, thanks: it really was non-existent indenting I saw :-); I though you were replying to Tordanik, so my post mostly makes sense in that context. But as for your new comment; if you DO decide to call accepting a new contributor terms a "vote" (which I wouldn't, as the point of voting is IMHO that it is binding even for the minority who didn't accept it, which new CT don't do), then your original comment "new contributors don't have a vote" is incorrect (as they currently have a choice either of "voting for ODbL" or "not becoming new contributors", so they always "vote for ODbL" - which is quite different from "they don't have a vote").
::: So I do agree with your original comment that new OSM contributors don't have a vote, but that is because I do not accept your second comment that accepting or declining new contributor terms is "voting". I mean, yeah, ratio of accepts/declines of new Contributor Terms might influence the final ODbL move decision (or it might not, depending on OSMF Board sanity :-), but so can many other things that are not "voting" (like threating with vandalism, making forks, buying out CloudMade or just bribing LWG members etc) --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 13:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

===All Share-alike Licences Create Ambiguity===

===Making Copies of your maps may not be allowed===
Thanks for pointing this out. I actually see it as a positive point. If I make render some nice red and pink map images/tiles of Europe they are protected under normal copyright law. Say amazingly my colour scheme (maybe including icons I drew) was considered creative and original, then I own the copyright. You can't render red and pink America map imagess if they're using a very similar style to me, it would be upsetting to all the time I spent dreaming and planning the style.

Interjection: AIUI this is factually incorrect. A copyright protects the expression of an idea, not an idea itself. (That would be a patent, or perhaps trademark or trade dress.) If you have a red and pink colour scheme, I can also have an identical red and pink colour scheme without any copyright problems as long as I did not illegally copy your stylesheet file. That means the rest of this argument does not follow. [[OSM:User:Gerv|Gerv]] 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You could however create a red and orange style (providing it wasn't trying to copy my style/shades and was original) and create map images of America and Europe. We both have pretty maps. You know what, I might even be a nice guy and release my images/style under CC-BY-SA(or PD), maybe even provide the stylesheet file. I way to even force style sharing would be if I used online-tool-x to create a style, but in the terms of that software I have to submit exclusive rights to either the tool maker or Public Domain so that you (or anybody) can use online-tool-x to duplicate and modify the style. --[[OSM:User:LastGrape|LastGrape/Gregory]] 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
: I consider my self a "nice guy" to publish my maps under a permissive license. I expect you to do the same if you use my maps.
:Since we are not in the main discussion I would like to state that I believe, and this is after talking with lawyers, that OSM edits might as well be creative output, we free form a lot to create our maps and that is very much creative. But no one is stupid enough to believe that they can just copy the OSM database so that argument will never have to be used. [[OSM:User:Emj|Erik Johansson]] 01:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

===Principle of least damage===

I'd disagree as to the worst case with CC-BY-SA. You suggest that it'd be "all of OSM data is effectively public domain". I think the worst case is that OSM data remains in an unclear legal state.

CC-BY-SA is more enforceable in some countries in others. So the situation will never be as unambiguous as "effectively public domain". In the US, yes, lots of it will be PD. In the UK, maybe not. So no-one will use it as PD, because an [[OSM:License violations|over-eager OSMer]] in another jurisdiction could still sue. Meanwhile, the unclear and unspecific definitions of BY and SA, when applied to data, will continue to stop people using OSM data.

CC-BY-SA is hurting OSM already, and has been doing so for many years. A major online map site (one of the two biggest at the time) wanted to include OSM as a "community layer". Their lawyers looked into CC-BY-SA and concluded it was too dangerously ambiguous for them to use it. Another time, a UK TV news programme wanted to use OSM's Baghdad map and were prepared to provide attribution. Again, CC-BY-SA was simply too unclear on what was "derived", and what attribution was required. And so on.

--[[OSM:User:Richard|Richard]] 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

: Thanks Richard for your opinion. I do not see that "unclear legal state" can be worse than any of the extremes -- it will always be either one of the extremes, or somewhere in between. So you either have people/companies treating it as a most restrictive form of CC-BY-SA imaginable (which makes it as good as ODbL), or as Public Domain (which is a "worst case" if you prefer copyleft license), or as a something in between ("mild" version of CC-BY-SA or whatever). I do not see any way that it can be considered more restrictive than "most restrictive form of CC-BY-SA imaginable". Schrödinger's cat is either dead or alive, it doesn't turn into T.Rex just because you don't know in which state it actually is.
: As for your other point, I agree with you that some people/companies will have problems with any license. I do not think that is a fault of license. I could also see the possibilities that some companies would be put off by ODbL complexity or the contract part if it etc. The companies you mention '''could have''' assumed the '''most restrictive''' (for them) of all possible CC-BY-SA interpretations, and know that they will be '''100% safe''', no matter which one of possible interpretations is taken. The fact that they choose not to go this fail-safe way, indicates that they either '''did not want to accept the most restrictive variant''' (in which case '''they would reject any other equally restrictive license''', even it was 100% clear - such as ODbL), or that they weren't interested enough to put not-too-big effort for finding most restrictive variant of CC-BY-SA (in which case I think ODbL would fare even worse; even if it is much clearer, but also much more complex, involving not one but combination of up to 3 different laws interacting) --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 19:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:: I think the problem is that the "most restrictive" interpretation of CC-BY-SA makes OSM potentially unusable. For example the most restrictive interpretation of the Attribution clause would be to Attribute all 150.000 users each time you use OSM, which isn't really practicable or inteded by anyone. Also, the idea that any one of the 150.000 contributors could potentially sue you even if their claim is unreasonable isn't directly appealing for using it either. Furthermore, the most restrictive interpretation of the share-alike would make the entire TV program share-alike in which a map is embedded, again not directly practical or doable. Therefore the most restrictive interpretation could simply lead to noone using OSM, which can't be in anyones interest. The ODbL clears much of this up and makes it therefore much easier to use. If you just "use" the OSM, there is no uncertainty with ODbL, It states a clear Attribution clause and produced work can be used in anyway. Share alike won't be a problem in this case either, as you haven't created a derivative DB, but just used OSM data verbatim, so if anything you would have to publish an empty diff. This is in my legaly unskilled opinion a huge improvement in clarity and could make a real difference in OSM adoption. --[[OSM:User:Amm|amm]] 20:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Thanks [[OSM:User:Amm|amm]], that have-to-mention-150k-contributors would really be messy if CC-BY-SA can really be interpreted that way (which I will assume it can, although I'd appreciate a pointer to data on that subject if you have it). I've updated that on the main page. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
: Also, I think if the idea is to get MORE companies to use OSM (and not be scared away by license), than one should move to LESS restrictive license (like CC0), instead of trying to come with more complex and more efficient way of enforcing restrictions (like ODbL). --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:: It is a compromise to make OSM as easy to use as possible for the largerst number of uses without giving up (an enforceable) Share-Alike. Independent of personal favour of CC0 vs Share alike, I think one has to acknowledge that the status quo is intended to be share-alike and a substantial fraction of the community (including some of the big data imports) wants share-alike. The chance of a license change succeeding to CC0 is thus by far smaller than to ODbL which in large is very similar to the intent of OSM when using CC-BY-SA . --[[OSM:User:Amm|amm]] 21:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

: mnalis - I think you're still under the impression that CC-BY-SA could be declared to be "effectively public domain". It can't. An unclear licence can't be definitively resolved one way or the other - not without several test cases. It would simply remain unclear.
: The result of that is that people won't, don't, use OSM. Let's say Zing Maps, for example, want to use OSM. They get their lawyers on the case. The lawyers say "yes, this licence doesn't work for street data in the US, and that's what we want to use, so it's effectively public domain". Fine. By your argument, that's all they need.
: But they don't use it, because the next sentence the lawyers say is: "But we cannot unambiguously promise that we won't get sued for using it." Another set of lawyers, or another jurisdiction, may have a different view. Zing do a risk analysis and work out that it's cheaper to pay for Tele Atlas data, rather than use OSM data for free but have a 1 in 10 chance of being sued.
: This isn't hypothetical. This is what Zing and Zoogle and so on have said. Even Google, for whom I have very little time, have said in public they'd have used OSM data if OSM had "sorted their licence out" (verbatim quote). --[[OSM:User:Richard|Richard]] 13:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

===Staying with CC-BY-SA for now and switching only if it's proven invalid===

We've been staying with CC-BY-SA for five years now. If we wait, but then have to change the licence in another five years, the relicensing will be yet more painful still.

As for "proven invalid": the world's largest search engine, the (at the time) second biggest online map site, and a British television company have all said at one time or another they will not use OSM data because of the current licence. The same applies at the other end of the scale - artisan cartographers here in the UK still use Ordnance Survey data in preference to OSM data.

When you say "CC-BY-SA is shown invalid for data, and hence all OSM data is actually public domain and free for grabs", once again, it isn't that simple. More likely, some OSM data in some jurisdictions is public domain (e.g. street networks in the US); other data in other jurisdictions isn't. We need a licence which is capable of applying in most cases, and that's either ODbL or a public domain declaration such as CC0. My personal preference is for the latter, but given how much debate simply changing from one sharealike/attribution licence to another can generate, I think changing from a sharealike/attribution licence to a PD declaration would be verging on impossible.

--[[OSM:User:Richard|Richard]] 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

===Not really Share Alike===

CC-BY-SA has a Collective Work provision, just as ODbL has a Collective Database provision - the difference in wording being because CC-BY-SA is a creative works licence whereas ODbL is a database licence.

OSM has long said that, if you overlay a set of data onto OSM (a "mashup"), this is a Collective Work rather than a Derivative Work. This is known as "Imi's layer clarification" (because the person who first wrote it on the wiki was [[OSM:User:Imi|Imi]], original author of JOSM and probably the most fervent sharealike advocate OSM has ever had).

ODbL does not change our approach at all.

There are two significant differences in ODbL's Share-Alike compared to CC-BY-SA's. Firstly, ODbL requires you to share the database source as well as the result, which CC-BY-SA does not. (ODbL is more like the GPL in this regard.) Secondly, ODbL does not require products ("Produced Works") made with ODbL-licensed data to be released in their entirety, but again, it does require the source database behind them to be. But the Derivative/Collective distinction is not significantly different.

--[[OSM:User:Richard|Richard]] 14:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

===Creative Commons' view===

The page says "Creative Commons have made an excellent case against using the ODbL".

Indeed, CC do not recommend the ODbL. They recommend public domain - no share-alike, no compulsory attribution. They do not recommend CC-BY-SA for data.

Their argument is not a recommendation for voting "no" unless you, too, would rather the entire database was made public domain. Bear in mind the OSM Foundation has already agreed that users will have the option to flag their own work as public domain.

It is also worth noting that CC '''hasn't''' made a case against the ODbL when applied to OSM. Rather, they think it's unsuitable for other data sets, and are worried that the prominence which we would lend it would be damaging to their public domain ambitions. [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002315.html To quote John Wilbanks, VP of Science Commons]: "If this were the 'Open Street Map License' and not the 'Open Database License' it's unlikely we would have such a strong opinion."

--[[OSM:User:Richard|Richard]] 11:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:Richard, I'd say there is a big difference between allowing individuals flagging PD and the whole project moving to PD. The first would only be a subset that is not actively maintained (e.g. I doubt routing would work on a subset culled from an OSM ODbL database) and the later would be a more complete data set which is actually usable and actively improved. The option to flag individual contributions is a bit of a red herring in this discussion IMHO.

:I also fail to see why CC's comments on ODbL don't apply in OSM's case. They might separately be concerned by license proliferation but the issues still apply as far as I can tell. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::"Richard, I'd say there is a big difference between allowing individuals flagging PD and the whole project moving to PD." Quite. In the interest of pragmatism, I'd probably be willing to release my contributions into the public domain if the whole project moved to PD. I'm not willing to release my contributions into the public domain if the project goes ODbL. In any case, I think the best solution at this point is to continue to use CC-BY-SA, though with a disclaimer that CC-BY-SA doesn't apply in jurisdictions where the data is public domain by law. Then, in jurisdictions where the data is PD, it'll remain PD. In jurisdictions where the data is not PD, it'll remain CC-BY-SA. [[OSM:User:⠠⠁⠝⠞⠓⠕⠝⠽|Anthony]] 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''The ODbL Fails to Promote Legal Predictability and Certainty Over Use of Databases''' - a great reason to vote no.
*'''The ODbL Is Complex and Difficult for Non-Lawyers to Understand and Apply''' - a great reason to vote no.
*'''The ODbL Imposes Contractual Obligations Even in the Absence of Copyright''' - IMHO the most important reason to vote no.
*The ODbL is a bad license for OSM. That's why you should vote "no", regardless of what you think a good license would be. Yes, if you want the database to be public domain, you should vote no. After all, if the entire premise of this change is correct, and the OSM database is not copyrightable, then a no vote gets you exactly what you want. In any case, the purpose of this page is to present the arguments, and to let people decide for themselves. '''I feel it is quite important for those making this decision to read [[OSM:ODbL comments from Creative Commons|the entire page of what CC had to say]] and then decide for themselves if it is relevant'''. Reading it has helped me personally solidify my decision to oppose this change. [[OSM:User:⠠⠁⠝⠞⠓⠕⠝⠽|Anthony]] 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
===ODbL data based on CC-BY-SA data===
The process is explained on [[OSM:Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan]], especially here:

''3. Each element is examined and only those with an unbroken history chain from version 1 to the most recent ODbL'ed version are marked as "OK".''

Which means that if user B modifies nodes/ways/relations of user A, that would be considered derivative work and such nodes would be removed (or reverted to last revision before "user A" touched them, but in your example "user A" was first to create them, so they would be removed).

However, the completely new nodes/ways/relations created by user B which do not touch user A data (for example, if user B enters a completely new node such as a POI) would remain on the map.

But any data that was partly or in full based on user A data would be either removed or distorted (depending on amount and nature of data overlapping).

If've tried to warn on interleaving issues [[OSM:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Principle_of_least_damage|here]] --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

==The current license is not broken / ODbL is unproven ==
Can we turn that statement by 180 degree to say "ODbL is not broken / CC-BY-SA is unproven"? That is about as accurate as the original statement and follows the same logic. To all of my knowledge, there has not been a single case in which ODbL has been found to not hold up in court, so ODbL must be a good and enforceable license. Likewise, CC-BY-SA has so far again to my knowledge not been tested in court, so you could say it is completely unproven, worse even, most lawyers seem to think it won't hold up for databases which isn't the case for ODbL. Now, of cause that argument is pretty flawed, but I don't think the original argument is more sane, particularly the "current license is not broken part". As much as I love OSM, I would say there aren't all that many large chunks of map that are uniformly better than TA or NavTeq data quite yet, so there aren't all that much incentives to steel the data so far, and the current license was just about enough for the hassle of going through courts being higher than the worth of the data. That does however not mean that in future people won't try and succeed as the value of OSM rapidly increases. So please don't use the past as a predictor of the future, or the lack of evidence as evidence of lack, without clearly stating the problems in doing so.

--[[OSM:User:Amm|amm]] 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:As far as I know, CC has never been tested in court either?
:[[OSM:User:TomH|TomH]] 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:: I suggest that people should not start changing the meaning of peoples statements. I do suggest (see dispute section above) that the LWG should have the right to add a rebuttal to a claim. The original author may then wish to rephrase their claim and request that the rebuttal is adjusted. If we get into group editing of the claims we have a huge likelihood of a flame war. [[OSM:User:PeterIto|PeterIto]] 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Sorry, I don't quite understand your objection to my comment. I wasn't suggesting to actually changing that statement on the wiki. That was a rethorical question in response to the line of argument I object to in the two points that I wanted to highlight by exagerating the argumentation into the (unreasonable) extreme. [[OSM:User:Amml|amml]] 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::: Also CC BY-SA is relatively new and untested in court AFAIK. [[OSM:User:Jaakl|Jaakl]] 09:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

== Users opposing ODbL ==

Users who oppose the planned ODbL-fork of this project may join [[OSM::Category:Users_Rejecting_ODbL]]. --[[OSM:User:Amai|amai]] 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== OSMF Statement is no longer relevant ==

This page is linked to from the osmfoundation website and sets the arguments for why people should not adopt the ODbL. The section provided by the OSMF, titled "OSMF Statement" is no longer relevant as the vote has long since past. I've attempted to clarify this by adding a section at the top that puts the OSMF Statement into context. [[OSM:user:firefishy]] disagrees with this change. The following is a transcript of a discussion with firefishy about this matter. As we didn't come to a satisfactory conclusion I'm reverting the page to the October 10th state until it has has been reviewed by LWG this evening.

[14:57:37] 80n: Hi
[14:57:47] firefishy: hey
[14:57:52] firefishy: MOAR hardware?
[14:58:29] 80n: I just wanted to chat about the Why you should vote No page.
[14:58:37] 80n: ...on the wiki.
[14:58:42] firefishy: yup yup
[14:59:16] 80n: I'd like to remove the OSMF Statement, but I see that you reverted it.
[15:00:57] firefishy: Those pages were put there for the OSMF Members vote. The whole voting thing keeps getting distorted.
[15:02:02] 80n: Indeed, but the vote it refers to has passed, however there are still active links to this page from the current license change material.
[15:03:05] firefishy: Which material? Happy to correct.
[15:03:08] 80n: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License
[15:03:23] 80n: This page has a direct link to the Vote No page.
[15:03:49] 80n: Which is fine, but we need to be able to keep the content of the Vote No page relevant.
[15:04:00] firefishy: It does: from this section: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Have_other_options_been_considered.3F
[15:04:34] firefishy: OK but there isn't a vote.
[15:05:04] 80n: Perhaps we need two new pages, rather than distorting the arguments that were applicable at the time of the vote.
[15:06:35] 80n: I added a section to try to clarify the purpose of the page, but it needs to be at the top because the OSMF statement doesn't make sense to people arriving from that page.
[15:08:56] firefishy: I've moved the pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_No
[15:09:06] firefishy: and added http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote
[15:09:58] 80n: What does that achieve?
[15:13:18] 80n: I propose we do one of three things:
1) Update the osmfoundation page to link to two new pages where relevant "what does it mean if you vote yes|no" information can be presented by both camps.
2) Leave everything as is, but remove the OSMF statement from the Vote No page.
3) Leave everything as is, but move the Important section on the No page to the top.
[15:17:49] 80n: Do you have a preference?
[15:20:46] firefishy: I'ved tidied up the page headers and made them match. There is this landing page now: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote
[15:22:48] firefishy: If you want to create a page for why people should not license their data under ODbL then go ahead.
[15:25:33] 80n: Would you please STOP making changes while we discuss this.
[15:26:09] 80n: Can you revert your changes please.
[15:27:09] firefishy: On what grounds?
[15:27:44] 80n: Because I'm trying to reach a consensus with you about what this page should contain.
[15:28:52] 80n: I suggested a choice of three options. You chose to ignore that question and edit the page in some other way instead.
[15:30:12] firefishy: As I have said, those pages were for the OSMF Member Vote, those pages were not clear. You seem to want to distort what those pages are for. I modified the pages to make quite clear why does pages were created. I have encouraged you to create a page on why people should not sign up to ODbL and you seemed to have declined.
[15:32:47] 80n: The problem is that the osmfoundation page about the *current* license change process linke to these pages directly. Since these pages refer to a vote that happened some time ago they are not very relevant.
[15:33:59] 80n: I think we should have a completely new page as you suggest, but it needs to be linked to from the osmfoundation page as this is where the problem is being caused. Can you change the links in there please?
[15:34:37] 80n: That way we can keep these Vote Yes / No pages intact as they were at the time of the vote.
[15:43:18] 80n: Are you able to change the osmfoundation page?
[15:46:09] firefishy: Yes. http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License%2FWe_Are_Changing_The_License&diff=494&oldid=484
[15:46:19] firefishy: I will discuss further this evening with LWG.
[15:47:28] 80n: That is not what I asked you to do.
[15:48:40] 80n: I asked you to change the links to point to a new page (I understand that you'd probably want to ok that with the LWG), but I also asked you not to change anything until we had reached a consensus.
[15:50:06] firefishy: Feel free to create the page(s). When created ask the LWG or OSMF to link. I'll bring it up with LWG tonight.
[15:50:27] 80n: Could you please revert all your changes in the meantime?
[15:52:07] firefishy: No.
[15:52:57] firefishy: If you have felt I have been dishonest in any of my changes then please complain.
[15:53:12] 80n: Ok, lets talk tomorrow.

: The above was a private discussion I had with 80n on Skype chat. I feel quite aggrieved that he posted this private discussion with him without first checking with me if it was ok. Oh well. -- [[OSM:User:Firefishy|Firefishy]] 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Licence and Legal FAQ/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No

2010-12-06T21:37:57Z

Firefishy: Fix talk links

==OSMF Statement==

In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a proposal to change the OpenStreetMap geodata license. ''The vote is now over. 55% of eligible members have voted, and 89% of those who voted have voted yes. So almost 49% of all eligible members have expressed their agreement to ODbL, and 6% have expressed their disagreement. [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000751.html Detailed results]. ''

----

==Why You Should Vote No==

This page provided a place for people to state their case about '''Why You Should Vote No''' to the proposed license change. It provides a good starting point for reading about objections to this license change and why.

Do also read discussion about these points on the [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No|talk page]] and also the article on [[OSM:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes|Why You Should Vote Yes]].

A summary of these points was put to the LWG. A [[OSM:Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL|partial response]] was made.--[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

==Important==
While this page is titled '''Why You Should Vote No''', this is somewhat misleading. You do not have a No vote. Instead you have the choice of accepting that your contributions are governed by the OSM Contributor Terms or choosing to leave your existing contributions licensed under CC-BY-SA.

If you decline the request to re-license your contributions under ODbL, all your contributions '''will continue to be available under CC-BY-SA''' and they will continue to be actively maintained as an alternative dataset. There is no compulsion to accept the OSM Contributor Terms.

==Statements in English==

=== Cannot import CC BY-SA licensed external data sets ===
{{main|Cannot import CC BY-SA licensed data}}
Two people have expressed concern about the possible loss of data which has come from CC-BY-SA sources. These are both quoted in this section and a [[OSM:Cannot import CC BY-SA licensed data|page]] has been created to explore the issue in more detail.

"I am very concerned at the loss of data which will occur in some areas - particularly in Australia - when data which cannot be relicensed is removed. We have imported large amounts of data from government sources, which are on CC-by-SA licence. This has allowed us to put data on the map which has otherwise been impossible to do with a small number of mappers and a huge area to cover.
I believe that there is a critical mass of data which is licensed CC-by-SA in the database and that the wholesale removal of this data noted in "Stage 4 - Remove all data from those who do not respond or respond negatively (the hard bit)" is going to either kill OSM in some areas or result in the project forking.

-- [[OSM:User:Drlizau|Drlizau]] 11:03, 5 December 2009

"If we change to ODbL with the proposed Contributor Terms, we will no longer be able to import CC-BY or CC-BY-SA data without the copyright holders agreeing to those terms. The proposed benefit of ODbL, that derived databases will have to be made available, will be rendered useless as we won't be able to use the derived databases in OSM unless they agree to the terms, and anyone doing that will likely have released the data under CC-BY-SA.

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Doctau]] - 12:28, 5 December 2009

Click for a [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Cannot_import_CC_BY-SA_licensed_data|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.

=== OSM's Contributor Terms are not compatible with ODbL ===
Consider the following scenario:
# X takes a copy of the OSM data
# X adds new data to it
# X publishes it under ODbL as a derived database ... fine so far ...
# Y receives a copy of the database from X
# '''Y cannot add the new data to OSM because of the Contributor Terms'''

Only X who is the copyright owner of the derived database can agree to the contributor terms. Y is not the owner and cannot grant "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright" to the data.

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:08, 5 December 2009

Click for a [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#OSM.27s_Contributor_Terms_are_not_compatible_with_ODbL|discussion of this point]] which is '''not disputed'''.

=== The OSM Foundation will have unlimited rights to all your data ===
The Contributor Terms require you to give OSMF unlimited rights to do whatever they want with your data.

Specifically you are required to make "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright" grant of your data to OSMF.

The contributor terms then try to limit that by saying that they will only license it under ODbL. But then they add a get-out clause that allows it to be changed subject to a vote.

It would be relatively easy for a large organisation to take over OSMF and make enought contributions to influence such a vote. It's not likely to happen in the near future but as the value of OSM's data grows the Foundation could become a very tempting target. There are insufficient safeguards in place.

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:08, 5 December 2009

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#The_OSM_Foundation_will_have_unlimited_rights_to_all_your_data|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.

=== The current license is not broken ===

The proponents of ODbL argue that the current license is not suitable for data. This rests on the premise that your contributions are just facts with no creative effort and facts are not protected by normal copyright. While this is a matter for the courts it is far from proven that contributions are not protected by copyright.

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#The_current_license_is_not_broken|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.

=== Even if the current licence is less strong than it could be, there is no evidence it causes any problem in practice ===

Additionally, there have been no documented cases of any organisation abusing OSM's data by using the argument that it is not protected by copyright.

The license appears to be working extremely well in practice and so does the whole project.

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:19, 5 December 2009

: To elaborate: Suppose someone derives data from OSM CC-BY-SA and then claims full ownership of the derived data. He/she would want to be able to defend his ownership, including when his/her clients discovers that his data is derived from OSM. Suing his/her clients will not only be very expensive, it will also damage his/her brand. Furthermore, the news will motivate the OSM community to look for legal ways of obtaining equivalent data. -- [[OSM:User:Nic|Nic]] 17:03, 28 August 2010 (BST)

=== ODbL is unproven ===
The ODbL license is brand new. There are very few real world uses of it and it has not been tested in court.

It is a complex license that relies on a combination of copyright law, database law and contract law. Like complex software it is likely to have bugs. And like complex software that has not been tested it is very likely to have bugs.

The value of OSM's data is too high to risk to a brand new untested license.

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:19, 5 December 2009

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#ODbL_is_unproven|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.

=== Even if the new licence is better, the cost of switching is too high ===

If any contributor doesn't agree to the new licence, their contributions (and work derived from those) will be deleted from the database. The exact number of people affected is a matter for debate, but certainly there will be some. The purported benefits from moving to a new licence do not outweigh even a 5% loss of contributors to the project. People, not data or licences, are OSM's most important resource.

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Ed Avis]] 12:30, 7 December 2009

: [http://opengeodata.org/300000-osm-contributors-and-counting 300.000 contributors] verus about 150 votes

==== Impact on Transitioning to ODbL If Significant Minority "No" Vote ====

A concern with the implementation plan, not ODbL. As I see it, there are
two separate issues:

* Is ODbL acceptable to each contributor? Assume for now this is a majority "yes".
* Should we transition OSM to ODbL, considering the level of support for point one?

I foresee several scenarios:

* Significant support to vote "yes" for the ODbL license. In this case, the impact is minimal.
* Majority support "no".
* A narrow majority "yes" for the ODbL license. This is the option that worries me.

The implementation plan is rather vague on how we will manage the narrow
"yes" situation. The implementation plan does have mitigation for "no"
contributors which is to "attempting to reach out to any contributors
who have not relicensed and trying to understand their concerns." For
data that has been touched by multiple editors, the [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues] states "The original data will have to be
removed, plus any later versions of the same element, but it is not
necessary to remove nearby or adjoining elements." This is probably
a legally closed issue but still open in terms of implementation. (Three
options are specified in the "backup plan" but I assume them to be
unofficial at this stage.)

Now assume that each node and way is examined and transitioned to ODbL,
on condition that it's chain of editors that accept the ODbL. I will
ignore the import of external databases for my crude analysis. If we
have 51% vote "yes", then for a way with two authors it has 26% chance
of being transitioned. For three independent editors, 13% of ways will
be transitioned. And given that ways depends on nodes and relations
depend on ways, this loss can cascade upward to prevent higher levels of
data being transitioned (what is the use of a way or relation if all the
nodes are lost?). Conclusion, if there is a narrow "yes" vote, areas
with many active editors will be decimated. This loss of data will be
extremely de-motivating to the mapping community. Note to self: someone
needs to do this analysis properly on the database history.

If we hypothetically accept the need to move from CC-BY-SA, we do not
want to pass by a mere majority to another license as this would do
unacceptable damage to the live database (and therefore damage the
community). And we can't say the mitigation is suitable at this stage,
as we don't know the level of ODbL support.

Points that need to be addressed (apologies if any have been addressed.
please link to solution):

* Amend the implementation plan for database migration that goes beyond mitigation and really addresses how ways, nodes and relations will be dealt with. (Not just in the backup plan. Present it in the voting proposal.)

* Conduct analysis for how much loss of data in ODbL transition there will be under different scenarios.

* Not to consider a narrow majority vote as a mandate to transition OSM, as a close "yes" vote would be disastrous to the live database and the OSM community. Have a separate vote on the overall project transition, as we need to know the level of support for ODbL before we can make an informed decision to migrate. Have a plan B in case of a narrow "yes" vote, including further modifications to the license to improve community "buy in". Be prepared to address concerns, as the level of interest in the license is likely to increase.

* Assess levels of support beyond just ODbL and CC-BY-SA. (Public domain forever!)

* Or we can just take the hit of ODbL transition and wait for the community to recover (assuming loss of data on ODbL transition is a de-motivation factor).

I know people call for the big license debate to be resolved quickly
(and I second that) but we can't fall at the implementation stage. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Impact_on_Transitioning_to_ODbL_If_Significant_Minority_.22No.22_Vote|discussion of this point]].

==== Fundamental flaw in voting: How to treat non voters? ====

Many of the contributers will have left OSM for various reasons (death, health, change of interests) and will not participate in the vote. This will most likely be the majority. I cannot imagine that a license change can be accomplished by majority vote for the non voting people! How should that work?

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Katzlbt]] 08:24, 16 July 2010

Click for
[[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Fundamental flaw in voting: How to treat non voters|discussion of this point]]

==== Fundamental imbalance in voting: New contributors, forced to accept ODbL will eventually outnumber CC-BY-SA contributors. ====

One of the most despicable things about the whole changeover process is that new users are not informed about the licensing controversy, but are instead forced to accept either the ODbL or PD. While I heartily approve of PD being offered, this change means that eventually as new users cycle in, '''there will be an automatic majority of users who have been forced into the new "all your contribs are belong to us" contributor terms!!!'''

If we extend this "voting" style to its logical conclusion, then there's nothing to prevent someone from using straw accounts to force the project into relinquishing control to a For-Profit company or a Closed Source license. It sounds to me like someone at OSMF is using the examples of Iran and other third-world countries' "open" elections to stage this one. --[[OSM:User:DiverCTH|DiverCTH]] 22:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Click for
[[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Fundamental imbalance in voting: New contributors, forced to accept ODbL will eventually outnumber CC-BY-SA contributors|discussion of this point]]

=== ODbL licensed data can be reverse engineered ===
In early drafts of the ODbL license there was a clause that prohibited data from being reverse engineered from produced works (images etc). This was dropped from the final version as it was unworkable.

A person may create a map from ODbL licensed data and publish it under a license of their choice (CC BY-SA for example). Anyone can then reverse engineer this map by tracing it.

Jordan Hatcher, the author of the ODbL license has argued that there will be residual rights which mean that any reverse engineered data would be considered to be covered automatically by the ODbL. However if this is the case then you would not be able to publish a map under CC BY-SA as the CC license does not permit residual rights to be retained.

This is a complex area that has not been tested in the courts, but either you won't be able to publish your map under CC BY-SA or you'll be able to steal all of OSM's data by tracing it from a map. Both outcomes are bad.

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:47, 5 December 2009

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#ODbL_licensed_data_can_be_reverse_engineered|discussion of this point]] which is '''is disputed'''.

=== Who owns OSM? You! ===

''This statement was translated into English by [[OSM:User:Frederik Ramm|Frederik Ramm]]. This does in no way mean that he agrees with the statement.''

Es geht moralisch nicht zusammen, dass OSMF die Lizenz ändert, ohne die Contributors zu befragen. Das passt weder mit "Who owns OSM ? You!", noch mit "supporting but not controlling the project" zusammen,

:''It isn't ok morally if OSMF changes the license without asking the contributors. This neither fits with "Who owns OSM? You!", nor with the idea of "supporting but not controlling the project".''

Die ODbL plus die Contributor Terms würden die Funktionsweise von OSM ziemlich grundlegend ändern. Sowas darf nur der Besitzer tun.

:''The ODbL plus contributor terms would fundamentally alter the way OSM functions. Such a change can only made by the owner.''

Auch ist nicht geklärt, was aus den Daten wird, die Leute in die Bank gegeben haben, und die neue Lizenz ablehnen werden,
oder die weder auf "ja" oder auf "nein" klicken können, weil sie nicht mehr teilnehmen, heute unerreichbar sind, oder gestorben sind. Dies ist der meiner Ansicht nach ein unüberwindicher Haken.

:''Also, it is unclear what happens to data contributed by people who do not agree to the new license, or who can neither agree nor disagree because they ceased to participate, cannot be reached, or have died. In my opinion this is an insurmountable hurdle.''

Da war mal eine Mitteilung, dass derart Daten aus der neuen Datenbank 'rausgeworfen werden würden.

:''Someone said that such data will be removed from the data base.''

Das war nicht der Sinn, in dem diese Leute aktiv teilgenommen und sich Arbeit gemacht hatten, und wäre unmoralisch : Man darf Menschen nicht einfach so wegwerfen (Diese Daten aus dem weiteren Projekt herauszunehmen und in eine andere Schublade zu schieben, ist moralisch keinen Pfennig besser).

:''That wasn't the purpose of these people who have actively participated and done a lot of work, and it would be immoral. You cannot throw away these people. (And removing this data from the project and moving it into another drawer is not any better, morally.)''

Im Moment steht im scedule in Woche 13 (also nach der Abstimmung) nur drin "entscheiden, was wir mit derart Daten tun". Sowas sollte vor der Abstimmung klargestellt werden.

:''Currently the schedule says for week 13 (i.e. after the vote): "decide what we are going to do with that data". This should be determined before the vote.''

Solange derart Unstimmiggeiten nicht klargestellt sind, oder es unwiderrufliche Gründe gibt, sich über moralische Grundsätze hinwegzusetzen, bleibt mir, im Interesse der Contributors (denen wir verantwortlich sind, unsere Versprechungen zu halten), nur die Wahl, ''nicht'' einverstanden zu sein.

:''As long as issues like this are not resolved, or there are indisputable reasons for ignoring basic moral principles, I can only say that I do '''not''' agree, in the interest of the contributors to whom we are accountable to keep our promises.''

Ich hoffe, dass Andere diese Bedenken teilen. Wir ''müssen'' ehrlich bleiben.

:''I hope that others share these doubts. We '''must''' stay honest.''

Mit besten Grüßen, Gerhard Ditsch

:''Best regards, Gerhard Ditsch''

-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Gerhard]] 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Who_owns_OSM.3F_You.21|discussion of this point]].

=== Contributor Terms can be changed ===
There are no safeguards in place that would require the OSMF to call any kind of vote before changing the Contributor Terms. As I understand it, it would simply require a majority vote from the board. The current board is honourable and trustworthy but it cannot be guaranteed that future boards will be.

If the board voted simply to remove clause 3 (OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0, or another free and open license;) then future contributions could be licensed however OSMF chose.

The Contributor Terms agreement does not contain sufficient safeguards to protect OSM's data.

[[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Contributor_Terms_can_be_changed|discussion of this point]].

=== Incomplete History for Split Ways ===
It is proposed that contributions from any user who does not accept the new license will be deleted from the new ODbL licenced database.

Unfortunately the history for ways is incomplete. When a way is split (in JOSM and I assume also in Potlatch) one half of the way is retained with it's original ID. The other half of the way is created as a brand new way with a new ID. This new way does not have any history and nor is there any link that associates it with the original way.

This means that the history and original attribution for half of all the split ways is just not there. The only way to sure that all a user's contributions have been deleted would be to delete everything, which is clearly impractical.

This makes the new license proposals simply unworkable.
[[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Incomplete_History_for_Split_Ways|discussion of this point]].

=== All Share-alike Licences Create Ambiguity ===

As has been illustrated in the long term discussions on ODbL, the legal complexity in creating a water tight license is insurmountable. Ambiguity reduces reuse of maps and we should strive for clarity. The community is large enough to make people want to keep coming back to get fresh OSM data. It is the community, not the database or the license that drives OSM after all. (I mean to imply the community includes our hard working foundation committee, server admins, mappers, devs, etc.)

The license with the lowest ambiguity is public domain-like or CC0 or similar. This should be an alternative on all future votes. This is the model used with the US tiger data for example. Of course this option has disadvantages: many users would only contribute with share alike terms and many imports are only available as share-alike.

Even if we go down the ODbL route, a "release my contributions as public domain" option should be available on each profile to allow a PD subset export. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Footnote: if the ODbL is adequate, which does OSMF need rights to make amendments to the license?

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#All_Share-alike_Licences_Create_Ambiguity|discussion of this point]].

=== Making Copies of your maps may not be allowed ===
Since ODBL makes it possible to put your rendered map under a restrictive license, you might find that you are not allowed to make a copy of a map that you have created but someone else has rendered. E.g. You collect data and draws a map, this mapdata that must always be copyable, but if someone renders that data to an image then they are allowed to put what ever restrictions they want on it's use. [[OSM:User:Emj|Erik Johansson]] 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The intention of the current CC license is that all derivative work is share alike (the extent that it achieves this is disputed). The ODbL intentionally changes this to allow raster maps to be of any license. This might not be desirable as some people prefer use of their work to be continued to be kept share alike to promote reuse of publications. This would prevent merging of OSM with data sets with less free license terms. I tend to think of those data sets to be inferior due to their terms of use. I therefore don't necessarily want my work being mixed with restrictive mapping data. This is analogous to the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html LGPL vs. GPL] in software licensing with respect to relicensing AFAIK. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 11:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Making_Copies_of_your_maps_may_not_be_allowed|discussion of this point]].

==== Not all questions answered on the Use Case page ====
I did not find an answer for the question yet, if a single user can still sue a license violator. I don't recommend to vote no, but I want to see all questions answered. --[[OSM:User:Lulu-Ann|Lulu-Ann]] 15:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

=== Principle of least damage ===
I'd like to call attention to the prudent principle of least (minimum) damage. Let's see what are the best and worst cases both for staying with CC-BY-SA, and with switching to ODbL (with reality, as usual, probably falling somewhere in between those two extremes):

* '''best case CC-BY-SA''' - bad companies do not try anything serious (as they didn't in the past) and all companies use CC-BY-SA true to it's spirit: mentioning OSM; so only downside is we wasted some time on exploring alternative licenses

* '''worst case CC-BY-SA''' - Copyright doesn't apply, so all of OSM data is effectively Public Domain (which many people do not have anything against actually, even if it is not their first choice and they prefer copyleft-alike license). Bad companies get to use it for free without giving OSM credit or contributing their additional data back (that might even have a side effect of making OSM even more popular, depending on the circumstances). Alternatively, CC-BY-SA is considered too strong and requiring too unreasonable things (like having to mention all hundreds of thousands of contributors on every use) and while bad guys can't touch it, neither can good companies like TV stations wanting to use maps and attribute them to OSM ''(thanks for update, [[OSM:User:Amm|amm]])''

* '''best case ODbL''' - bad companies do not try anything, and we are (due to good licence) more sure that they stays that way, but we lose some data and some contributors because they do not agree with new license (or are not reachable). That is unavoidable even in best case as shown by reaction of some people.

* '''worst case ODbL''' - many users do not relicense their data, and data is so interleaved that major parts of the map are destroyed (not only data of users who refuse or are unable to relicense, but also of all ODbL-complying contributors who just happen to have edited the data someone else has edited before), and even pro-ODbL contributors are alienated and lose interest upon seeing such outcome, and the OSM withers and die. Alternatively (and somewhat better) is probability that there will be one or more forks of the project, which would again heavily divide contributors and alienate them. The fact that we're much better protected from bad guys becomes irrelevant, because we destroy ourselves so neatly without any outside help. Third alternative is that ODbL proves unenforceable too, and all OSM data is effectively Public Domain.

The point is '''possible gains of ODbL switch are too small when compared to possible problems'''.
Hence, I'm upholding the principle of the least damage (''Ne čačkaj mečku!''), and recommend voting '''against''' ODbL and staying with CC-BY-SA. ''(Note: even with "CC-BY-SA requiring too unreasonable things" update, I still think that the worst case of ODbL, especially first or second option, are much worse than anything in the CC-BY-SA worst case; and even the best case for ODbL brings some damage; so I still recommend against trying to move to ODbL)''

As it looks to me, CC-BY-SA seems to work pretty OK for now in dissuading bad guys, even if it's chances to be upheld in court are not as big as initially thought (or even much worse). Although I do prefer copyleft license like ODbL or CC-BY-SA to Public domain or CC0, I would much rather accept OSM CC-BY-SA becoming Public domain than having even a minor possibility of the data people contributed in good faith being lost (can you imagine negative publicity and hurt feelings and alienation that even an 1% loss or higher of contributors would cause? And how much of those who initially remain will lose interest in further contributions after such events? Maybe next time the license would change to something THEY won't like, and then all THEIR effort will be thrown out of the window. And that is destroying their man-hours/days/months/years they've put voluntarily on the project. Not a lovely picture at all. We should avoid such precedents unless we have VERY good reasons, which I think we don't at the moment)

As such, I'll probably vote against ODbL unless I see better reasons to go with the switch.
If the problems with bad guys escalate in the future, I will reconsider ODbL advantages against it's disadvantages again; but at this moment I am not convinced that proceeding with the switch is a good idea.

I hate to see several hundred manhours lost by LWG, but I think it would be better than going through with something this dangerous. Even if everybody was pro-ODbL (and they seem not to be), some people simply will not reachable anymore to give their approval of license change, and removing even just their data (and all other data people have built up over it as is needed) is too high a cost. Note that most of this comment would probably be exactly the same if it was the question of switching to CC0 or Public Domain - it is simply too late to change the licensing at this stage of project with so many contributors without much damage. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Principle_of_least_damage|discussion of this point]].

===Staying with CC-BY-SA for now and switching only if it's proven invalid===
There is no point in doing extensive damage to OSM (removing data, alienating current contributors) unless ODbL is much better choice than CC-BY-SA due to its being better enforceability. But should we cause that (maybe unneeded) damage '''now''' ? Or would waiting actually give us much better options ? I intend to show that waiting is indeed a much better strategy.

Obviously, CC-BY-SA is a problem '''only''' if it is proven not applicable to data (if CC-BY-SA actually works in court, it is as good as ODbL, and without doing any damage like ODbL does !). So, we would be much better off to stay with CC-BY-SA for now. When the problems arise, we try to enforce CC-BY-SA, and it either works (bad guys get scared) or it actually goes to court, which can then result in one of two outcomes:

# CC-BY-SA is shown valid for data. In that case we win, and have all the same benefits as if we switched to ODbL, and without any negative impact -- surely a clear win ! '', or''
# CC-BY-SA is shown invalid for data, and hence all OSM data is actually public domain and free for grabs. In such a case, OSM community can '''in that moment''' decide to go to ODbL, change contributors terms to ODbL, and relicense '''ALL THE DATA''' without getting approval from all contributors (which they can, as it has just been proven by court that that data is unprotected and free for grabs!) under ODbL, without having to delete any data from OSM and damage it that way (which we'd had to do if we were to switch NOW)! Again a very big win when compared to '''switching right now'''. The only downside is that a first "bad guys" will have a free use of OSM data for few months, until it goes stale (and they can't abuse any new data as it is now protected by ODbL).

So I hope I've shown why staying for CC-BY-SA for now is a '''win in any case'''. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Staying_with_CC-BY-SA_for_now_and_switching_only_if_it's_proven_invalid|discussion of this point]].

===Not really Share Alike===

IANAL, but after reading the license I have the following idea: yes, it's nice Share Alike license, but it's basically pointless because there's separate Collective Database term.

For example: with CC-by-SA, all derivative works should be licensed under compatible licenses. Thus EvilNavCo can't take our data, enhance it with it's own data and not open it.
With ODbL it seems to be easy: EvilNavCo does NOT add items to OSM database thus not creating derivative work. Instead, they create Collective Database which consists of unmodified OSM and their own proprietary source. ODbL sect. 4.5.a -> voila, you're not obliged to apply this license to such a product. This leads to abuse of our data and doesn't encourage contribution at all.

Am I missing something?

Also, proposed scheme (ODbL + contributor terms) [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000726.html does not allow import] of other ODbL-licensed content into OSM. So it is never Share-Alike license on the import side, and it is not Share-Alike license on the export side since the EvilNavCo can circumvent it easily. That is completely against CC-BY-SA spirit (which we are led to believe the new ODbL+CT would be "almost alike, only better protected").

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Not_really_Share_Alike|discussion of this point]].

===ODbL comments from Creative Commons===
Creative Commons have made an excellent case against using the ODbL at [[OSM:ODbL comments from Creative Commons]]. Most importantly:
*The ODbL Fails to Promote Legal Predictability and Certainty Over Use of Databases
*The ODbL Is Complex and Difficult for Non-Lawyers to Understand and Apply
*The ODbL Imposes Contractual Obligations Even in the Absence of Copyright

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#Creative_Commons'_view|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.

=== Not clear if single contributors will be able to sue license violators ===
I have voted no because my question was not answered with more than a "maybe" during the voting period.

There is no functioning process to deal with license violators with the old license, so if nobody cares, what is a change good for? It is not needed.

--[[OSM:User:Lulu-Ann|Lulu-Ann]] 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

=== ODbL data based on CC-BY-SA data ===
What would happen in a case like the following?
* User A maps the basic road network in an area
* User B prints out this map, adds more details (using the existing road network to align them), and adds them to OSM
* User A does not relicense as ODbL
* User B '''does''' relicense as ODbL
Didn't user B create some kind of derivative work of User A's data? Really, what would happen in such a case?

Click for [[Talk:License/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No#ODbL_data_based_on_CC-BY-SA_data|discussion of this point]].

=== ODbL covers only data, CC-BY-SA also works derived from it ===

English:

From my point of view the ODbL license is a step back and worse to CC-BY-SA because the future license will only cover the raw data, not works derived from it. This means that a company can ''steal'' our data, produce something from it (i.e. mobile app, special interest map, ...) and claim money for it, as long as they do not modify the source data. The current CC-BY-SA license forces companies to release derived '''works''' under same conditions. The ODbL will not (only '''data''').

Furthermore it might be even possible by a juridical dodge to enrich these works with further data (from other sources) and neglect a submission to OSM, as long as this data will not be joined together with OSM data in one database.

Deutsch:

Aus meiner sicht ist die ODbL Lizenz ein Schritt zurück und schlechter im Vergleich zur CC-BY-SA, denn die zukünftige Lizenz wird nur noch die Daten schützen, nicht mehr Werke, die daraus gewonnen werden. Das bedeutet, dass eine Firma unsere Daten ''stehlen'' kann, etwas daraus produziert (z.B. eine mobile Anwendung, eine spezielle Karte, ...) und dafür Geld verlangt, solange sie die Quelldaten nicht verändern. Die jetzige CC-BY-SA Lizenz zwingt Firmen dazu, ihre '''Werke''' unter selben Bedingungen wieder zu veröffentlichen. Die ODbL wird es nicht (nur noch '''Daten''').

Außerdem könnte es durch einen juristischen Winkelzug sogar möglich sein, diese Werke mit weiteren Daten (aus anderen Quellen) anzureichern und eine Weitergabe an OSM zu verweigern, solange diese Daten nicht zusammen in einer Datenbank landen.

-- [[OSM:User:Jot|Jot]]

=== using the wrong language ===

English:

I find the topic very difficult. Not only is thinking in a different language extremly time consuming, especially if one has to look up new vocabulary repeatedly. I endeavour freely accessible data
and do not my contributions to be deleted, then I could have skipped doing it. But as long as I don't find an accetable foundation for voting, I'll neither vote yes nor no.

Deutsch:

Ich finde die Thematik sehr kompliziert. Das alles in einer fremden Sprache zu durchdenken ist extrem zeitraubend, wenn man immer wieder auf Vocabeln stößt, die man nicht kennt. Ich wünsche mir frei zugängliche Daten und ich möchte natürlich nicht, daß meine Daten gelöscht werden. Da hätte ich mir die ganze Arbeit sparen können. Aber solange ich keine akzeptable Entscheidungsgrundlage finde, sehe ich mich außerstande, irgendein Votum abzugeben. --[[OSM:User:Elmada|elmada]] 10:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

English:

I can only agree to the previous speaker and would like to add: I'll never agree to a licence that is not written and explained in German language. Though a big part of the mappers is from Germany,
this has not happend, yet. I do understand German very well, English is good, legasile Germany works reasonably but legasile English, and this is important here, too poorly, but confirm a licence change.

Deutsch:

Ich kann mich dem Vorredner nur anschließen und möchte ergänzen: Ich stimme keiner Lizenz zu, die mir nicht auch auf Deutsch formuliert und erklärt wird. Das ist, obwohl ein Großteil der Mapper aus Deutschland kommt, noch immer nicht der Fall. Ich verstehe Deutsch sehr gut, Englisch einigermaßen, Juristendeutsch nur leidlich, Juristenenglisch, darum geht es hier, aber nur zu rudimentär, um einem Lizenzwechsel zustimmen zu können.

:Deutsche Erläuterungen und die deutschen Lizenztexte finden sich hier: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Open_Database_License --[[OSM:User:MapUserOne|MapUserOne]] 12:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

=== commerical interest in licence change ===

English:

As far as I understand, clouldmade and anybody else will have trouble protecting the rendering rules for maps and so monetarize the use, even if the maps are made form a 100% OSM database. OSM would then not be share-alike redistributable. So they are useless for pratical use. So one could prohibt me using my contributed data in cloudmade view, if I don't pay couldmade for this. I suppose this is driving force: as with the corresponding google project, the mapper is just a useful idiot, while others make a haul. It is the Apple way: take from KHTML, freeloading so the speak, but brush Linux of when coming to iTunes.

Deutsch:

Nachdem, wie ich es bislang verstanden habe, wird cloudmade oder sonstwer in der Lage sein, sich die Renderregeln für diverse Karten schützen zu lassen und den Gebrauch damit zu monetarisieren, selbst wenn die Karten zu 100% nur aus OSM-Daten bestehen. OSM-Karten sind dann nicht weiter im Sinne des Share-Alike kopierbar. Sie sind damit in der Praxis nutzlos. Man könnte es mir also untersagen, meine dem Projekt beigesteuerten Daten in einer Cloudmade-Darstellung zu nutzen, wenn ich Cloudmade dafür nicht Geld bezahle, Ich vermute, genau das ist beabsichtigt: Wie schon beim entsprechenden Google-Projekt ist der Mapper der nützliche Idiot, während andere den Reibbach machen. Es ist die Apple-Masche: sich aus dem KHTML bedienen, sozuagen schmarotzen, aber Linux bei iTunes die kalte Schulter zeigen. --[[OSM:User:Q un go|Q un go]] 07:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

English:

: You are right, this are interests, that 99% of the active users don't share. I don't have a problem with the current licence, but the whole project suffers from the undemocratic change.

Deutsch:

: Du hast auf alle Fälle recht, daß es hier um Interessen geht, die 99% der Mapper (und User) nicht haben. Ich habe kein Problem mit der aktuellen Lizenz, aber das Projekt leidet unter der undemokratischen Umstellung. --[[OSM:User:Amai|amai]] 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

=== CC-BY-SA argument is a snake oil argument / CC-BY-SA Argument ist Augenwischerei ===

English:

As the initiators of the transition believe CC-BY-SA is not applicable, effectively rendering the data Public Domain, formally no agreeing of the copyright holders would be neccessary in order to change the licence. So no deletion would be required. Though they think of a removal of non-transitioned data, which permits only a choices for conclusion
* the whole thing has not been properly thought of,
* someone wants to damage the project as a whole,
* their are interests in the permissions granted by OBDL verus CC-BY-SA.
The latter has already be reported to be commercially exploitable in a way not permitted by CC-BY-SA.

Deutsch:

Das Hauptargument für die Umstellung ist, dass CC-BY-SA nicht anwendbar wäre, also die Datenbank völlig ungeschützt wäre. Dann wäre aber auch keine Zustimmung der Urheber für die Umstellung notwendig, also auch keine Löschung des Materials von Urhebern, welche die Umstellung nicht unterstützt haben. Damit verbleiben nur noch wenige Möglichkeiten, die Umstellung zu bewerten
* die ganze Angelegenheit ist nicht durchdacht,
* es schadet dem Projekt als solches,
* es bestehen Interessen an den Rechten, die OBDL einräumt, CC-BY-SA aber nicht.
Die unerwünschte Art kommerzieller Verwendbarkeit letzterer Rechte wurde bereits erläutert.

==Comments in other languages still needing translation==
*add your comment here if it is not also in English...

[[OSM:Category:Open Data Licence]]
__NOTOC__