On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM > servers is a form of "publishing" in terms of copyright.
Indeed, it's the act of distribution. The question is, if the user uploads a derivative work to OSM is that than an act of distribution? If they were to distribute a copy of the derived work to some other third party such as Google, and grant Google rights that go beyond CC-BY-SA then it's clear that they have breached CC-BY-SA. There is no special condition or exception for OSM and so the same rule applies. > > If you create a work and never publish it (in other words, nobody else > will see it), then it is not yet copyrighted. Even works for hire are > not copyrighted until the hiring entity publishes it. > > Again, IANAL, but submitting data to the OSM server where it is > *immediately* published via the OSM API and *immediately* made > available to the public licensed as CC-BY-SA, doesn't put the > contributor in breach of the CC license. Since the publishing doesn't > occur until the data is made available via the OSM API (and the OSM > Planet), then I believe there is no problem. > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as >>> CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license. >> >> Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a >> deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. >> >> Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution. This can >> only be done under CC-BY-SAQ. >> >> You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the >> terms required by the CTs. >> >> >>> >>> CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under >>> CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to >>> release the data *in the future* under another license. >> >> You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot >> distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement. >> Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their >> contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as >> the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement. >> >> The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA >> licensed content, you do not have. What OSMF subsequently proposes to >> do is irrelevant. >> >>> >>> If the data will be released *in the future* under a different >>> license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. >> >> Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF >> now, not in the future, that they do not have. Contributors, not >> OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived >> contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs. >> >> They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement >> that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that. >> >>> >>> But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP >>> will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is >>> the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone >>> mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, >>> not breaching the CC license. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor >>>> terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach >>>> of the CC-BY-SA license. >>>> >>>> Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that >>>> content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this >>>> creates a derived work. >>>> >>>> If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so >>>> under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. >>>> That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone >>>> who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can >>>> contribute this content under a different license. >>>> >>>> Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such >>>> content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works >>>> is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* >>>> that content. >>>> >>>> If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be >>>> breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> legal-talk mailing list >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> > > > > -- > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
