On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:14:51AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > it seems I was a bit sloppy with my post. > > > Ignoring the fact that under US law, it's impossible for individuals > > to place copyrighted material into the public domain? > > Well there's this sentence I've read a number of times which goes like > "... public domain ... where not possible, I grant everyone a > perpetual license to do whatever they want...". Generally I just say > "public domain" because I assume everybody understands what is meant > by that: Relinquishing control of what you have made, not requesting > to have a say in what is done with it. > > Giving it away for free, if you will.
Understood. My further followups took this into account in a way my first post did not: my apologies for not understanding in the first place. > > > cons - will lead to loss of data by people who do not want to > > > support PD, and may have compatibility issues on the import > > > side (e.g. cannot import data that mandates attribution) > > > > Which would be all the AND data? All the MassGIS data? > > Well, if there's anything in our database right now that requires > attribution where used, it should be removed immediately because we > cannot guarantee that. I don't see any MassGIS attribution here: > > http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=42.35711492131644&lon=-71.05755752794222&zoom=17&layers=0000F0B0F > > (Granted, I deviously selected the Mapnik layer but you get the > point.) But if you downloaded the source data, you would get attribution. There is no "enforcement" of that -- but there is an 'attribution' tag on each item, which has not been removed by subsequent editors in any case I've seen, which meets the "Source data, when available, should include attribution to MassGIS" requirement. (I've also confirmed that if it's removed as a result of editing, that falls within the allowable expectations of MassGIS.) So, I think that social norms exist within the OSM project which *do* allow attribution-licensed data to be included under certain circumstances. Isn't AND a dataset that 'requires attribution where used'? I thought that was the way it was given to the project originally. (I understand that we're not meeting that requirement, but I was still under the impression that was the case.) > > A large number of the 'successes' that OSM has claimed have lain > > precisely in its licensing model, > > A number of people I have spoken to at SOTM'07 said that AND would > very likely have given their data even if we had been PD. Which is > just speculation, but your statement quoted above is speculation as > well. Well, not entirely. I was under the impression that copyleft was a reason that AND had participated, and I know that MassGIS is far more supportive if the source data has attribution to MassGIS than if it doesn't. If the project went public domain, I would feel obligated to remove the MassGIS data -- and given that all the significant work I've done has been based on it, that would also mean abandoning all the work I've done in the OSM project -- a disappointing proposal at best! Is it possible that MassGIS would be willing to contribute their data without the "source data requires attribution" clause? Absolutely. However, it would require a discussion with the Lawyers, which means money and time which MassGIS doesn't have any reason to spend -- and given that they survive on taxpayer dollars, I can't see the argument that inclusion in OSM is worth taxpayer dollars. Now, I could be wrong, and someone at the organization would step up and say "of course you can do that!" But the current license fits within the social and legal framework that OSM has already built, so changing that is, from my point of view, a step backwards. I'm obviously biased here, since all of my work in this case is building on the "shoulders of giants" that I'm allowed to via the MassGIS's liberal licensing. Others are not similarly blessed. To me, switching to a public domain dedication means throwing away all the work that I've done on data in OSM (other than adding the name to Inner Circle Road, of course). > And if even the Creative Commons people now suggest to their > followers that in some situations PD (with expected, but not > enforcable attribution, as Richard explained) might be best and they > create a nice wrapper and logo for the scheme, then I think it should > be possible to work with that and convince others to make data > available under that. I don't disagree, but it's the difference between continuing as is -- which discussions with MassGIS have encouraged -- and taking a giant leap backwards and throwing away my data in the meantime. Obviously, if I'm horribly outnumbered I'm not in a position to block anything moving forward, but I really do like the way that my hometown is coming along, and have gotten a number of other editors in the area participating. Having to pull the rug out from under them would be unfortunate at best. > So, I don't see the large number of successes that stem precisely form > the licensing model as you claim! I think the *social* wins have been easier with sharealike licensing. Certainly this has been the case for some discussions I have been having with regard to OAM: the lack of sharealike licensing being available has prevented them from contributing their data to the project. Perhaps this is different for OSM -- I had assumed that since the organizations I'm in contact with are primarily European government agencies there would be a similar attitude for OSM-related activity. (Perhaps OSM has succeeded to such an extent that governmental participation is not neccesary/desired: if that is the case, then my point obviously is irrelevant.) > > > CC - > > > pros - no loss of data, copyleft "spirit" remains intact, world > > > becomes better place, legal requirement to give stuff back to > > > OSM > > > > Er, CC? I didn't see Richard proposing the use of CC... > > The fact that the CC-BY-SA license we have today doesn't work is > widely accepted. I used the term "CC" to refer to the ODCD/ODCFI > tandem that Richard mentioned; this was stupid, I should have at least > used "SA" or "Copyleft"; this was the essence of what I meant. Okay, thanks. That definitely was not clear from the email. (With that in mind, some of my response is irrelevant: I'll remove those bits below as appropriate.) > > Are you sure you read the post? I'm assuming you're aware that > > you're telling the author of Potlatch -- one of the relatively few > > pieces of OSM software *released into the Public Domain* (so far as > > that is legally possible) -- that his/the foundation's attitude > > towards the data licensing debate is the wrong one? > > No, I was just suggesting that it might actually be a good idea to > poll the community for whom the Foundation wants to do the best, > especially as a (non-representative!) poll at the SOTM'07 has shown > that a large majority seemed to favour PD. Okay. I'll state in an equally non-representative fashion that given that changing to a public domain style license changes the legal situation such that my personal efforts in OSM will essentially be tossed out with the bathwater, I'm against such a move personally. > > I'm perhaps reading something wrong. I'm clearly not a lawyer, but > > reading the license stuff that is linked to from Richard's post, > > it's clear to me that the license that the foundation is asking for > > feedback on pursuing is *very* different to the CC license, in a way > > that makes it very clear what types of activities are allowed that > > wasn't at all clear before. > > Yes, and I fully agree that the ODCD/ODCFI tandem would be much better > than the unclear situation we have now. Good. I'm glad we agree on that at least :) > > Did you read the Open DB License? Your argument seems to not take > > into account the level of thought which has been put into the > > current verison of the license: I'm not sure if that's intentional, > > or if I'm just misreading your message. If the latter, I apologize, > > but if it's the former, or if you haven't read the license yet, I'd > > highly encourage you to be more specific about what things you feel > > the ODB License does not make clear -- because to my reading, it's > > pretty obvious. > > I have read the license and I have not said that it is in any way > unclear; the only thing I said that it is very likely that with any > such (restrictive, as opposed to PD) license there will *always* be > cases deemed ok by the community (in a "why, yes of course that should > be allowed") but which are not allowed by the letter of the license. > That is not a fault of the ODCD/ODCFI licenses, but just a feature of > any kind of complex legal mesh you put up to achieve your goals. Can you think of an example? I understand that the whole point of your statement here is "It's hard to come up with examples", but I would hope that there is at least something that you would think could be unclear if you're bringing it up as a concern. > > My position that copyleft is not important is only the position I > > take personally because there have thus far been no good licenses > > that enforce copyleft without unneccesarily preventing derivative > > works that are intended to be allowed. > > Ah, yes, that's about what I meant with my 99%. > > Even though the ODCD/ODCFI is much better than what we have now, I > would prefer a PD solution. My reasons include: > > * PD is easy to understand. You don't have to read legalese to know > what you may and may not do. The existing CC licenses have tried > very hard to be easy to understand and yet even most of OSM > contributors don't get them. ODCD/ODCFI is none the better. Well, reading the CC licenses it's clear to me that under the 'letter' (rather than spirit) of the way the licenses are used within OSM, I can't do much of what I feel like I should be able to -- whereas ODCD makes it clear that I can. > * Any license is only as good as your means and your will to enforce > it. I think there are even jurisdictions where if you don't sue > someone who infringes upon your license, you will basically lose the > right to sue him (or others doing the same). I want to work for a > free world map and not for feeding the OSMF legal dept. I disagree on this point. There was recently a discussion about OSI "compelling" organizations to use the term "Open Source" correctly. Even without the legal bandwidth or means to pursue community members who misuse the term "Open Source", it was pointed out that the OSI does have the ability to convince organizations to be good citizens -- and in part, the way that is done is simply by pointing out that they should be good citizens. You don't have to sue someone to be pursuing your rights -- but having the legal standing that you *could*, rather than just politely asking, seems important to me given the litiguous attitude of many European NMAs. > * This is a very personal sentiment but to me, there's a world of > difference between giving something away with no conditions > attached, and "giving away" stuff with lots of rules (I give you > this but you must promise to ... and otherwise I won't give you > anything). The latter, to me, is really not "free" in any meaningful > way. I disagree with this entirely. But that's just a rehash of the GPL vs. BSD debate (sort of -- not precisely since I'm personally a BSD-person, and I still disagree with you), so there's no reason to have it: I'll simply state and accept that we're on different sides of the issue. > I have said these things many many times on this list and I didn't > really want to say them again; the essence of my posting was just that > the Foundation should poll the members instead of going to great > lengths to find out what's best for the members without talking to > them. I think that there is a general social leaning among the people who "speak the loudest" towards sharealike licensing. I don't think a poll is likely to change that perception, because the silent majority will continue to be silent whether the questions are on mailing lists or an online poll. So, even if what you say is true -- that the silent majority is likely to be perfectly happy with Public Domain -- I doubt that a poll will change the situation any. But hey, if I'm right, then a poll won't change the situation any, and so long as it's not ardurous to create, it's relatively easy to try to prove me wrong :) Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
