Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis : > > My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent > to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign > copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future), > but > it is better to call a spade a spade. Technically (at least in English law), no. Its a sublicence rather than an assignmentt. They are distinct. Many jurisdictions impose formality conditions on assignments of copyright that they do not on licences. In a licensing situation the licensor retains their ownership of the copyright, contrast the assignment situation. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Matt Amos writes: >if it's in the public domain then you already have permission from the >copyright holder. also, having permission from the rights holder to >distribute under License X is the same thing as having permission from >the rights holder to submit the content, no? Well, not quite; if it's truly in the public domain then there is no copyright holder, so you do not have permission, nor do you need it. And permission to to distribute under licence X does not imply permission to add the data to OSM where it will be redistributed under 'free and open' licence Y subject to a vote some time in the future, so we must decide whether to allow this case. (IMHO, if OSM chooses the ODbL but ends up in the position of rejecting third party contributions which are themselves licensed under the ODbL, something is wrong with the licensing policy.) >>If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not >>simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. > >because we've heard it time and time again that people don't want to >do copyright assignment. My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future), but it is better to call a spade a spade. Still, if there is a strong view that copyright assignment is unacceptable but something that amounts to basically the same thing expressed with more words is fine, then I suppose we can go with that. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Ed Avis schrieb: > If it is not possible to take one ODbL-licensed work, and combine it > with another ODbL-licensed work to make a third ODbL-licensed work, > then either the ODbL is even worse than it first appears, or the > proposed OSM implementation of it is flawed. The ODbL certainly allows that. However if individual submissions to OSM were licensed under ODbL then OSM would be locked in to that license. I think ODbL is a good license for OSM, but I'm not sure it will remain the best possible license forever, so I think being able to change the license is important. >> Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has >> copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF >> board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings >> attached for the symbolic price of $1. > > The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any > licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly > rules out the above scenario. The community vote makes sure the OSMF can't do that: "or another free and open license chosen by a vote of the OSM Foundation membership and approved by a vote of active contributors." ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
So i will dig through http://www.ign.fr/page.do?externalRef=instit.document.cms.id.mentionsLegales and probably ask them about. Thanks Martin Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > El Viernes, 3 de Julio de 2009, Martin escribió: >> They belong to the "Institute Geographique Nationale" from morocco and >> could be public domain, but i don't know. > > No, no, no. They are indeed from the Institute Geographique Nationale, but > not > from Morocco. From France. See www.ign.fr and > https://www.stanfords.co.uk/stock/africa-ign-1100-topographic-maps-of-nw-africa/ > > The spanish "Instituto Geográfico Nacional" claims copyright over old topo > maps (dating back to 1890 or so). I wouldn't be surprised if the french IGN > would do the same. > > > I think you should ask the french IGN about the issue. > > > Cheers, ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
El Viernes, 3 de Julio de 2009, Martin escribió: > They belong to the "Institute Geographique Nationale" from morocco and > could be public domain, but i don't know. No, no, no. They are indeed from the Institute Geographique Nationale, but not from Morocco. From France. See www.ign.fr and https://www.stanfords.co.uk/stock/africa-ign-1100-topographic-maps-of-nw-africa/ The spanish "Instituto Geográfico Nacional" claims copyright over old topo maps (dating back to 1890 or so). I wouldn't be surprised if the french IGN would do the same. I think you should ask the french IGN about the issue. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC & freenode ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
I already made a changeset based on that before i realised the unknown state of copyright: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1712798 How to remove that? Thanks Martin Martin wrote: > Hi > > I would like to know if it is allowed to trace over the maps from: > > http://www.ml-datos.com/4/ficheros/mapas/marruecos/IGN%201-250.000/ > > I already know that it is allowed for: > > http://www.madmappers.com/mapset.php?MS=182 > http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/north_africa/ > > since they are listed in: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#Old_maps_found_elsewhere_on_the_web > > Thanks > > Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
Hi Elizabeth Thanks for analysis! This map series are more reliable than the others and would be very valuable. They belong to the "Institute Geographique Nationale" from morocco and could be public domain, but i don't know. Martin Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Martin wrote: >> I would like to know if it is allowed to trace over the maps from: >> >> http://www.ml-datos.com/4/ficheros/mapas/marruecos/IGN%201-250.000/ > whoever scanned the maps left off the dates and cartographer details. > I checked two, and there seemed to something missing off the very bottom of > the sheet in each case. > Then I checked another map on the site and found a date of 2001 on it, so > there is no guarantee they are old maps out of copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
No, i can't :( I was hoping that there is someone who could. Still hoping .. Sorry Martin Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Martin wrote: >> I would like to know if it is allowed to trace over the maps from: >> http://www.ml-datos.com/4/ficheros/mapas/marruecos/IGN%201-250.000/ > > Can you point us at a licence page, please? > > cheers > Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > Francis Davey writes: >>>Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration >>>when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such >>>permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. >> >>Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other >>contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only >>permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have >>consideration because I don't have to let you do that > > Good point. So if there is a contract you must agree to before downloading > the > data, the consideration can be that you received a copy of the data. not really. the ODbL is enforceable through IPR alone. there is no need to have people agree to *view* the data. the license (or more probably a link to it) will be present in all downloaded data, similar to the LICENSE file in GPL software. > Much better IMHO to rely on copyright law and other laws such as database > right, > which apply whether you have signed a contract or not. If these laws do not > exist in a particular country, well, that's a choice for the citizens of that > country. the ODbL does. perhaps you should read it? >>The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to >>impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using >>intellectual property law. > > Yes, that's exactly why I for one dislike it. And the side-effects, such as > banning anonymous downloads of the data set (or indeed downloads by minors, > who > might not be bound by any purported contract) are unpleasant too. it doesn't ban anonymouse downloads. >>But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and >>standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a >>contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring >>in other legal considerations. > > Yes... I think the proposed ODbL has all three question marks over its > validity > as a contract. You have dealt with one of them, consideration, by pointing > out > that merely getting a copy of the data can be consideration - which is fine, > as long as nobody somehow gets a copy other than from the OSM website... all forms of license suffer from this, including common opensource licenses like GPL, etc... even CC-BY-SA. and, as we all know, GPL and CC-BY-SA are ineffectual for databases. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Ed Avis wrote: > Richard Fairhurst writes: > > I kind of think it should be compulsory for anyone posting to legal-talk > to > > demonstrate that they have read, and understood, Rural vs Feist and > Mason vs > > Montgomery. > I will read those (anyone got a link?). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Case_law http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law Bear in mind also that Creative Commons themselves have said several times that CC-BY-SA is not suitable for OSM. For example, "In the United States, data will be protected by copyright only if they express creativity. Some databases will satisfy this condition, such as a database containing poetry or a wiki containing prose. Many databases, however, contain factual information that may have taken a great deal of effort to gather, such as the results of a series of complicated and creative experiments. Nonetheless, that information is not protected by copyright and cannot be licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons license." And so on and so forth. That's from http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases . That page is actually deprecated because CC now recommend, effectively, that data should be public domain. Given that CC, to me, has always appeared to have an unspoken policy of favouring share-alike as the default recommendation, that's pretty telling. It's a huge subject, one with lots of shades of grey and very little black-and-white, and one that has been discussed very, very extensively here, on various blogs and elsewhere in the last few years. But if you can't summon the energy to read all that, and I wouldn't blame you, do at least read Charlotte Waelde's paper and the key US cases (Rural vs Feist, Mason vs Montgomery). For what it's worth, my interpretation at present is that a simple OSM map of a housing estate, such as http://osm.org/go/euwtbOAo-- , is not at all copyrightable in the US (the most liberal jurisdiction). It's a simple collection of facts - street names and geometries - arranged in an uncreative fashion, and Rural vs Feist tells us that this doesn't merit copyright. Therefore CC-BY-SA will not protect it. (And given that this level of detail is on a par with the major commercial mapping sites, it's definitely something of value.) Something more intensively mapped, such as http://osm.org/go/eutDzIjd-- , may perhaps attract copyright protection for the database structure - which, in OSM, is principally the tagging system. It could go either way for the database contents, which is still pretty uncreative _given_ that structure, but could be argued to involve careful assessment of sources and so on (Mason vs Montgomery). But as is traditional at this point, I should point out that I am not a... you know the rest. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Privacy-and-Terms-tp24185975p24325453.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Richard Fairhurst : > > Francis Davey wrote: >> OK. As I said, google maps don't have a T&C imposed before use - >> what would be useful is to identify what exactly are the problems >> that one is seeking to deal with before going straight to code. > > Google Maps (read-only, equivalent to browsing OSM) have Terms of Service: > http://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/help/terms_maps.html Ah, sorry, I missed that. Its very hard to see on the map I get by default (since its text on graphics).. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > Matt Amos writes: > >>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms > > Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright > holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission > from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have > explicit > permission from the rights holder to submit the content. if it's in the public domain then you already have permission from the copyright holder. also, having permission from the rights holder to distribute under License X is the same thing as having permission from the rights holder to submit the content, no? maybe it's just the word "explicit" that we need to remove? > Sections 2 and 3 seem a bit too much of a blank cheque to the OSM Foundation. > If we truly believe in share-alike, then is it not enough for contributors to > agree to license their work under Licence X, and then the OSMF will be able to > redistribute it? that's not how it works with databases. each item in the database is contributed separately and has rights separate from those in the database. the database is licensed ODbL, but the contents are licensed as noted in the contributor terms. there is no blank cheque. read section 3 - "OSMF agrees to use or sub-license your contents **only** under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0, or another free and open license chosen by a **vote** of the OSMF membership **and** approved by a **vote** of active contributors." this is even stronger than the proposed changes to the articles of association. OSMF will be bound by more than 100,000 contracts with contributors which prevent it from licensing data under anything other than ODbL 1.0 or CC-BY-SA 2.0 **unless** there is a vote not only of the OSMF membership (which you can join) but also of the global active community (which you are presumably part of). seriously, i don't see how we could possibly make this any less of a blank cheque without preventing future license upgrades altogether. > If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply > ask > for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. because we've heard it time and time again that people don't want to do copyright assignment. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey wrote: > OK. As I said, google maps don't have a T&C imposed before use - > what would be useful is to identify what exactly are the problems > that one is seeking to deal with before going straight to code. Google Maps (read-only, equivalent to browsing OSM) have Terms of Service: http://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/help/terms_maps.html Google MapMaker (user-contributed, equivalent to contributing to OSM) has its own Terms of Service: http://www.google.com/mapmaker/intl/en_ALL/mapfiles/s/terms_mapmaker.html To contribute to GMM, you need a Google Account. This requires explicit assent to their terms (by clicking "I accept. Create my account."). These terms explicitly flag up that you will be agreeing to the terms of individual Google 'Services' when you use them: "Your agreement with Google will also include the terms of any Legal Notices applicable to the Services, in addition to the Universal Terms. All of these are referred to below as the “Additional Terms”. Where Additional Terms apply to a Service, these will be accessible for you to read either within, or through your use of, that Service." AIUI, the Foundation's proposal is that a standard ToS will be linked from the website, and additional contributor terms will require assent when you create an account. This is exactly equivalent to Google Maps, unless I've misunderstood. cheers RJF1001, oops, Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Privacy-and-Terms-tp24185975p24325146.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Ed Avis wrote: >>> ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means >>> that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot >>> upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. >> >> But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. >> Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? > > My reading until now was that because ODbL gives the original licensor > super cow powers (namely of determining which other licenses are deemed > compatible), everyone has the super cow powers, but they're cascaded. e.g: if OSMF is the original licensor and i want to license some derived database under a different license i have to ask OSMF. if you license it from me and want to distribute your derived version, then you have to ask me *and* OSMF. however, i can delegate my super cow powers to a 3rd party (e.g: OSMF) to make my life easier. > it must be avoided to pass on these super cow powers to > evil people like me (Fred sets up free world database, licenses it ODbL > with himself at the license root, imports full OSM database without > asking anyone, then decrees under section 4.4.e that for his project, > ODbL is compatible with PD, and this makes the OSM data PD.) indeed. this is why the upstream compatibility decision is necessary. much as i'd *love* to have a PD-OSM (not the one with specially named zip files on an FTP server, but just OSM in the public domain), there were many in the community who were against PD/BSD style licenses. hence, why ODbL is an SA/GPL style license. > But please let someone from the license working group say something to > this before I confuse everyone. > >> The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any >> licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly >> rules out the above scenario. > > Sh, don't say that too loud, it has taken us PD advocates a lot of work > to sneak that bit in! no, that's not what it says at all. it says OSMF can grant any license they want as long as it is "free" and "open" **and approved by a vote of active contributors**. if you really want PD, or you really don't want PD: join OSMF, keep your email up-to-date and continue mapping! then your voice will be heard (twice). cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis : > > Hmm, I think I would argue that 'use of the data' is no consideration at all > since I would have been able to use it anyway even without agreeing to the > terms. For example if I publish a copy of the King James Bible with a > 'contract' at the front, and the consideration for this contract is being > allowed to copy the text, clearly this isn't a valid contract since the > supposed consideration is really nothing at all - the text is in the public > domain anyway. Actually its Crown Copyright, but its unusual to see people bothering to obtain licences for it (though years ago we did make the effort to get a licence for an online version with no difficulty). So, there's an interesting point here which is that, you could, in principle, only sell to people who agreed not to copy it. They would be bound by that agreement, though their successors in title and third parties would not be. Having such a "contract" in the front of the book is more difficult because its harder to see how and why a purchaser of the book would be bound by it, unless they had had its terms drawn to their attention before purchase. This is the classic "shrinkwrap" question as someone else remarked. Legal publishers do this by the way. I have several books which have more or less ludicrous attempts to prevent my exercising my dominion over books I have bought. Just because you say it, doesn't make it binding, not because of want of consideration but because its not incorporated into the contract. The worst example I have ever seen was in a youth hostel in Pembrokeshire. In the kitchen was a notice which said that the YHA and its employees were not liable for any personal injury or death whether caused by their negligence or otherwise. There is so much wrong about such a statement I wouldn't know where to begin. Some website T&C's try to do the same kind of thing. > > Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration > when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such > permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have consideration because I don't have to let you do that (although there's a bunch of unresolved legal issues with the internet there too). > > But in such cases, I would suggest, a contractual agreement is not necessary > anyway. The copyright holder can sue me for making copies of a book whether > or not I agreed to that when I bought it. If you don't have a licence for the > necessary copyright or database rights then you are not allowed to distribute > the data. There is no need for any contract. Yes, that's right too. You don't need to obtain a contract to enforce rights you already have. > > That is why I think that imposing an EULA or terms and conditions on people > is unnecessary and ineffective. Either the database right exists or it > doesn't; > if it does then no contract is needed to enforce it; and if it doesn't then no > contract has been agreed to because there is no consideration. The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using intellectual property law. > > As a lawyer does that make any sense, or is there some flaw in the above? > Apart from the small matter of consideration, no. >>Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. > > I wonder how much case law there is for 'contracts' which are some text > displayed on a website, which has not had any scope for negotiation, and where > the supposed consideration is granting you 'permission' for something you most > likely had the right to do anyway... I doubt many such cases get to court. In respect of text on websites: In the UK I suspect there are more than you think, but they tend to happen at the rather knock-about stage in the county court and so they don't get reported and we don't hear about them. in the US there are *lots* and *lots* of them reported. But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring in other legal considerations. > > Yes, quite... so far 'good practice' has been the reason given, which doesn't > really satisfy me and others that the benefits outweigh the costs. OK. As I said, google maps don't have a T&C imposed before use - what would be useful is to identify what exactly are the problems that one is seeking to deal with before going straight to code. >>Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really >>welcome here, so I'll shut up again. > > I am sorry about the tone of my previous message - I would like to hear more > of your thoughts. Thanks. -- Francis Davey
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
If I were a complete newbie I'd get lost in the first sentence: "but I just want to enter a street that's missing, I'm not a copyright holder for that. Or am I? Better ask the 'rights holder'. Now who would that be?" Result: either go away or do like most people - scroll to the bottom without reading so you can find the button to click to get to the next page. Something more like "You will not enter any data which you have copied from elsewhere without permission" would be clearer, even if it's only an explanatory comment. Graham Matt Amos wrote: > just so that this isn't hidden in the dark depths of the privacy > thread, i thought it's worth announcing the latest draft of the > contributor terms. this is the document that contributors would agree > to as the license is changed and on any new sign-up. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms > > bear in mind that it still isn't a finished document - it's under > discussion in LWG meetings and is being reviewed by OSMF's lawyer. we > think it sets out, with the minimum of legalese, a fair contract with > the balance rights and obligations that the community wants. > > we look forward to hearing any feedback. > > cheers, > > matt > > ___ > 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey writes: >>Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean >>you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. > >Yes and as is I hope clear from what I have written (although your use >of the word "but" suggests possibly not) I do not believe you do. Cool, so we agree on this point. Sorry, I don't mean to flame, I misread the position you were taking. >There has to be consideration, but if I say to you - if you want to >use my data you must agree to abide by these contractual terms - then >there will be consideration: you get the use of the data, Hmm, I think I would argue that 'use of the data' is no consideration at all since I would have been able to use it anyway even without agreeing to the terms. For example if I publish a copy of the King James Bible with a 'contract' at the front, and the consideration for this contract is being allowed to copy the text, clearly this isn't a valid contract since the supposed consideration is really nothing at all - the text is in the public domain anyway. Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. But in such cases, I would suggest, a contractual agreement is not necessary anyway. The copyright holder can sue me for making copies of a book whether or not I agreed to that when I bought it. If you don't have a licence for the necessary copyright or database rights then you are not allowed to distribute the data. There is no need for any contract. That is why I think that imposing an EULA or terms and conditions on people is unnecessary and ineffective. Either the database right exists or it doesn't; if it does then no contract is needed to enforce it; and if it doesn't then no contract has been agreed to because there is no consideration. As a lawyer does that make any sense, or is there some flaw in the above? >Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. I wonder how much case law there is for 'contracts' which are some text displayed on a website, which has not had any scope for negotiation, and where the supposed consideration is granting you 'permission' for something you most likely had the right to do anyway... I doubt many such cases get to court. >What I think you mean is that OSM shouldn't use the suggested terms of >use (I assume that's the "screenful of legal boilerplate"), I probably >agree (that's why I said "yuk" earlier in the discussion) but the >starting point is not the terms of use, its what are you trying to do >with terms of use? What risks are you trying to avoid and/or what >advantages are you hoping to achieve? Yes, quite... so far 'good practice' has been the reason given, which doesn't really satisfy me and others that the benefits outweigh the costs. >There's a lot more to such things than merely trying to bind visitors >to a contract. For example if you process personal data then as a >matter of good practice you should have a clear explanation of what >you are going to do with it (and as a matter of law in the EU you >should inform the data subjects you are doing so). I suspect OSM does >need such a thing. Agreed. >Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really >welcome here, so I'll shut up again. I am sorry about the tone of my previous message - I would like to hear more of your thoughts. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: >> ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means >> that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot >> upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. > > But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. > Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? My reading until now was that because ODbL gives the original licensor super cow powers (namely of determining which other licenses are deemed compatible), it must be avoided to pass on these super cow powers to evil people like me (Fred sets up free world database, licenses it ODbL with himself at the license root, imports full OSM database without asking anyone, then decrees under section 4.4.e that for his project, ODbL is compatible with PD, and this makes the OSM data PD.) But please let someone from the license working group say something to this before I confuse everyone. > The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any > licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly > rules out the above scenario. Sh, don't say that too loud, it has taken us PD advocates a lot of work to sneak that bit in! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis : > > Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean > you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. > Yes and as is I hope clear from what I have written (although your use of the word "but" suggests possibly not) I do not believe you do. I am trying (though unsuccessfully) to make helpful remarks, but they don't seem to be being helpful. > > I think if it's necessary to undertake a complex contractual obligation just > to > look at some map data, then it is no longer free map data. But if we assume That is, as I understand it, what the new data licence does attempt to achieve - but I could have misunderstood this. > that the goal of OSM is now 'provide legally encumbered map data under EULA' > for the sake of this discussion... > >>There's a difference between that and a pure copyright >>licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material >>without a licence (or some exception holding) so "I didn't know the >>terms of the licence" won't help someone who wants to "steal" the >>data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have >>to bring its terms to their attention. > > Yes, and they have to agree to it (just seeing it on a web page is not > enough), Sure, its a necessary but not sufficient condition. > and although IANAL, I think there must be some consideration, for example a > monetary payment. It's not clear that putting up an intimidating screenful There has to be consideration, but if I say to you - if you want to use my data you must agree to abide by these contractual terms - then there will be consideration: you get the use of the data, and I get whatever I get out of the terms and conditions (eg you agreement to do or not to do certain things). Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. NB: this is all in English law terms, other systems of contract law work differently. > of legal boilerplate accomplishes anything. > Oh yes it does: it can annoy and intimidate people. It is what some people want to do. Not, I suspect, what OSM wants to do which is why (amongst other things) you shouldn't use ALL CAPS paragraphs unless you want people to feel shouted at. What I think you mean is that OSM shouldn't use the suggested terms of use (I assume that's the "screenful of legal boilerplate"), I probably agree (that's why I said "yuk" earlier in the discussion) but the starting point is not the terms of use, its what are you trying to do with terms of use? What risks are you trying to avoid and/or what advantages are you hoping to achieve? Once you have that thought through, then its pointful to look at whether you need any form of legal wording on your site and, if so, what it should be. There's a lot more to such things than merely trying to bind visitors to a contract. For example if you process personal data then as a matter of good practice you should have a clear explanation of what you are going to do with it (and as a matter of law in the EU you should inform the data subjects you are doing so). I suspect OSM does need such a thing. A statement can amount to a warning or disclaimer that does not create contractual relations but puts the recipient on sufficient notice to be aware that there are dangers or risks in using a site in a certain way and so as to limit the site owner's liability - I cannot see any need for such a thing with OSM. Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really welcome here, so I'll shut up again. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Frederik Ramm writes: >ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means >that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot >upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? If it is not possible to take one ODbL-licensed work, and combine it with another ODbL-licensed work to make a third ODbL-licensed work, then either the ODbL is even worse than it first appears, or the proposed OSM implementation of it is flawed. >>If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply >>ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. > >Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has >copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF >board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings >attached for the symbolic price of $1. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey writes: >Many websites have terms and conditions (eg amazon >and tesco) and they do so because using those sites goes beyond just >having a browse but involves rather more interaction (including the >handing over of money). >In the case of OSM things don't go that far (importantly no money >changes hands) but users of the site can add content to it. Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. >That may be true, but if I want to attach a complex contractual >obligation on anyone who uses the data (which is what the new open >data licence will do) then I need to make sure that you know you are >agreeing to it. I think if it's necessary to undertake a complex contractual obligation just to look at some map data, then it is no longer free map data. But if we assume that the goal of OSM is now 'provide legally encumbered map data under EULA' for the sake of this discussion... >There's a difference between that and a pure copyright >licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material >without a licence (or some exception holding) so "I didn't know the >terms of the licence" won't help someone who wants to "steal" the >data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have >to bring its terms to their attention. Yes, and they have to agree to it (just seeing it on a web page is not enough), and although IANAL, I think there must be some consideration, for example a monetary payment. It's not clear that putting up an intimidating screenful of legal boilerplate accomplishes anything. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: > Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright > holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission > from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have > explicit > permission from the rights holder to submit the content. > > (Licence X being whatever licence OSM is using... so if another organization > releases data under CC-BY-SA or under ODbL or whatever, clearly it must be > permitted to add that to OSM. If not, something is a bit wrong.) ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. > If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply > ask > for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings attached for the symbolic price of $1. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Matt Amos writes: >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the content. (Licence X being whatever licence OSM is using... so if another organization releases data under CC-BY-SA or under ODbL or whatever, clearly it must be permitted to add that to OSM. If not, something is a bit wrong.) Sections 2 and 3 seem a bit too much of a blank cheque to the OSM Foundation. If we truly believe in share-alike, then is it not enough for contributors to agree to license their work under Licence X, and then the OSMF will be able to redistribute it? If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
Hi, George Ionescu wrote: > One more quick question, just to be sure: how should we handle > printing media in CC-BY-SA terms? > Is printing ©OpenStreetMap - CC-BY-SA on the map enough to ensure I'm > complying with current OSM license? If you have enough room then we prefer the URLs for OSM and CC written out. There is some info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F However if your space is limited, abbreviations are allowed as the license only requires attribution "adequate to the medium" or so. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Brendan Barrett wrote: >> What happens if someone, with malicious intent, deletes lots of data or >> uploads things that cause trouble (e.g. upload Teleatlas data, then tip >> off Teleatlas to make trouble). Do we reserve the right to sue them for >> damages, and if so, would this agreement be the place to hint at that? > > Would they not be in breach of condition 1: Yes; let me change the example and ask whether we reserve the right to sue someone who uploads 100.000km of random motorways across Europe every day. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
Hello Frederik, thanks for the quick reply. One more quick question, just to be sure: how should we handle printing media in CC-BY-SA terms? Is printing ©OpenStreetMap - CC-BY-SA on the map enough to ensure I'm complying with current OSM license? Thanks. George. On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > George Ionescu wrote: >> we're planning on creating printed materials which will include OSM maps. >> Does the new license allow us to do so? > > Yes but anything you do before the new license is implemented, which may > still be half a year away for all we know, is governed by the old CC-BY-SA. > > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
> What happens if someone, with malicious intent, deletes lots of data or > uploads things that cause trouble (e.g. upload Teleatlas data, then tip > off Teleatlas to make trouble). Do we reserve the right to sue them for > damages, and if so, would this agreement be the place to hint at that? Would they not be in breach of condition 1: "You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright holder or that you have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the content." If they break that condition, would the protection disappear? Regards, Brendan Barrett _ What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: > just so that this isn't hidden in the dark depths of the privacy > thread, i thought it's worth announcing the latest draft of the > contributor terms. this is the document that contributors would agree > to as the license is changed and on any new sign-up. Good but I dislike the long-ish part about the liability. I understand it is all for the benefit of the mapper but it does sound differently. It is as if you are about to give blood and they give you one page to sign that lists all the circumstances under which they guarantee not so sue you - kinda leaves you with the feeling "oh, I hadn't thought of that... how many other circumstances are not listed here under which they WILL sue me?" I'll heap a ton of praise on you if you manage to express section 5 in 40 words or less. What happens if someone, with malicious intent, deletes lots of data or uploads things that cause trouble (e.g. upload Teleatlas data, then tip off Teleatlas to make trouble). Do we reserve the right to sue them for damages, and if so, would this agreement be the place to hint at that? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
just so that this isn't hidden in the dark depths of the privacy thread, i thought it's worth announcing the latest draft of the contributor terms. this is the document that contributors would agree to as the license is changed and on any new sign-up. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms bear in mind that it still isn't a finished document - it's under discussion in LWG meetings and is being reviewed by OSMF's lawyer. we think it sets out, with the minimum of legalese, a fair contract with the balance rights and obligations that the community wants. we look forward to hearing any feedback. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis, Francis Davey wrote: > That may be true, but if I want to attach a complex contractual > obligation on anyone who uses the data (which is what the new open > data licence will do) then I need to make sure that you know you are > agreeing to it. This is most likely not going to happen with OSM data. We already have a well-established scheme where OSM data is downloaded, mirrored, and distributed anonymously. Not only do many computer sites automatically download new OSM data as it becomes available on planet.openstreetmap.org; this data is then aggregated, converted, and redistributed by many, professionals and hobbyists alike. It is not feasible to release the data only under the condition that the person downloading it has clicked some "I agree" button somewhere; because this would not only force us to change how osm.org works, but we would also have to add some "contractual" obligation to anyone downloading our data to only pass it on to people who agree to the terms/license etc! If you want more background, you might want to check the legal-talk archives for the words "browse wrap" and "click wrap". What we will most likely have is some message inside the downloaded data that says "by using this you agree to blah blah blah". > There's a difference between that and a pure copyright > licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material > without a licence (or some exception holding) so "I didn't know the > terms of the licence" won't help someone who wants to "steal" the > data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have > to bring its terms to their attention. True but it is absolutely not feasible to make data release dependent on someone reading and agreeing to some terms. Even if it were, a license/contract scheme built on this would only require one rogue element violating the contract and passing the data on to others who haven't entered into the contract and everything would fall apart. > That of course is not the same question as the T&C's for use of the > website (which is a different matter) but I flag this up here as you > bring it up. It is a point that has been discussed a lot in the run-up to the new license. Any advice you have on all this is surely valued by the license working group, but you might want to read their minutes on osmfoundation.org and/or peruse the legal-talk archive to get an idea of the process. > No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The > idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the > extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going > on in the US that makes them do this. Please do because I would hate to lose my son's mapping help! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Francis Davey wrote: > > Put the lawyer back in the cage. > > Be nice 8-). This isn't (as far as I can see) about lawyers being > unreasonable. I just get the impression that some people have had so much to do with lawyers while trying to get the database licence organised that they have lost sight of reality. Lawyers advise. Philosophers think. Don't mix the roles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > I go to a website, i read, i look at pictures. > I know quite well that the contents are either copy left or copyright and i > should check before i copy anything. Then again if you're in the US and you see an image that shocks you you might sue the website owner for damages to your health, unless that owner was so clever to write in his terms and condition that you can't - or so it seems. > Put the lawyer back in the cage. +1 Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Elizabeth Dodd : > > I can't really comprehend how "terms and conditions for use of a website" mean > anything in the big real world. > I'm over 50 years old, have university degrees and post graduate > qualifications; i teach undergraduates and postgraduates in my field. > However, I'm not stuck in academic clouds > and putting terms and conditions on a website is bizarre. Not at all - it depends on context and what you want those terms and conditions to do. Many websites have terms and conditions (eg amazon and tesco) and they do so because using those sites goes beyond just having a browse but involves rather more interaction (including the handing over of money). I want to be able to click on a button to buy a book from amazon, so its useful for me to be able to come to an agreement with amazon as to what that will mean. In the case of OSM things don't go that far (importantly no money changes hands) but users of the site can add content to it. Do you want (in any way) to govern how they do that? Its noteworthy that the use of google maps comes without any terms and conditions (that would be legally binding anyway) but that (say) use of blogger.com *does*. In deciding whether to have such a thing, what it should contain and how to deploy it you need to understand what you think you are going to get out of doing so, i.e. what you are trying to achieve by it. That's something that a lawyer can't answer, they are only a technician who can tell you if and how to do what you may or may not want to do. > I go to a website, i read, i look at pictures. > I know quite well that the contents are either copy left or copyright and i > should check before i copy anything. That may be true, but if I want to attach a complex contractual obligation on anyone who uses the data (which is what the new open data licence will do) then I need to make sure that you know you are agreeing to it. There's a difference between that and a pure copyright licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material without a licence (or some exception holding) so "I didn't know the terms of the licence" won't help someone who wants to "steal" the data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have to bring its terms to their attention. So its not so simple as you say, if OSM wants to achieve what it appears to be trying to achieve with its new licence model. That of course is not the same question as the T&C's for use of the website (which is a different matter) but I flag this up here as you bring it up. > Terms and conditions for use of a website - do we put terms and conditions on > advertising posters governing who can read them? No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. > It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for > the public to read. Not if you want to edit the data (as far as I can see anyway) then you do have to sign up. > > Put the lawyer back in the cage. > Be nice 8-). This isn't (as far as I can see) about lawyers being unreasonable. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Martin wrote: > I would like to know if it is allowed to trace over the maps from: > > http://www.ml-datos.com/4/ficheros/mapas/marruecos/IGN%201-250.000/ whoever scanned the maps left off the dates and cartographer details. I checked two, and there seemed to something missing off the very bottom of the sheet in each case. Then I checked another map on the site and found a date of 2001 on it, so there is no guarantee they are old maps out of copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
Hi, George Ionescu wrote: > we're planning on creating printed materials which will include OSM maps. > Does the new license allow us to do so? Yes but anything you do before the new license is implemented, which may still be half a year away for all we know, is governed by the old CC-BY-SA. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Frederik Ramm : > > In fact, this whole discussion is largely about Ts&Cs for our *web site* > and not for our data. The data thing is regulated somewhere else > entirely (in the ODbL license text and accompanying docs). What this > lawyer actually suggested is that we should have Ts&Cs governing the use > of our web site, which is of small importance compared to our data. > No, I get that. It was using it as an extreme example. Someone using your website may end up making use of some of your data and if I you very paranoid you could make them click an agreement which included a limitation of liability clause before being able to use it. In contractual/liability terms you can't impose a disclaimer like that just by having a little CC-SA-BY at the bottom of a website (as OSM does at the moment). -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Ulf Möller wrote: > It doesn't. It's just that during a review of the proposed license, a > lawyer pointed out that it is good practice to have terms of use for the > website. That recommendation would still stand if we chose not to change > the license. I can't really comprehend how "terms and conditions for use of a website" mean anything in the big real world. I'm over 50 years old, have university degrees and post graduate qualifications; i teach undergraduates and postgraduates in my field. However, I'm not stuck in academic clouds and putting terms and conditions on a website is bizarre. I go to a website, i read, i look at pictures. I know quite well that the contents are either copy left or copyright and i should check before i copy anything. Terms and conditions for use of a website - do we put terms and conditions on advertising posters governing who can read them? It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for the public to read. Put the lawyer back in the cage. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
Hello to all OSM users, we're planning on creating printed materials which will include OSM maps. Does the new license allow us to do so? What kind of disclaimer should be used in print media? Thank you. George. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi,
Francis Davey wrote:
> I can't really say much constructively about the terms of use without
> understanding what their goal is and what tolerance of risk the thing
> is being engineered to. For example, OSM data is going to be imperfect
> in places
In fact, this whole discussion is largely about Ts&Cs for our *web site*
and not for our data. The data thing is regulated somewhere else
entirely (in the ODbL license text and accompanying docs). What this
lawyer actually suggested is that we should have Ts&Cs governing the use
of our web site, which is of small importance compared to our data.
I am not even clear if the lawyer who suggested we need Ts&Cs for the
web site was only talking about the human facing side of it ("Web sites
are what you see in a browser, aren't they?") or about the whole HTTP
based API we offer. Probably the former, because it is difficult to make
a computer accessing the API understand and agree some Ts&Cs.
Bye
Frederik
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Frederik Ramm : > > As Francis Davey just said, there may be a choice. *Especially* if you > are not based in a litigation crazy country like the US. > Its also a question of making sure you know how to work with your lawyers (who of course ought to be good ones). If you don't know what you want, a lawyer can't make it happen for you. Its also important to make sure you are talking directly to those who are expert in the field, rather than through a filter. One often hears that people cannot do something "for legal reasons" when in fact their conversation with their lawyers has said something quite different. This may seem trivial, but exactly the same thing happens in computer science, as this anecdote illustrates: head of history at my secondary school was a keen amateur programmer (in the 70's/early 80's this was more unusual than it is now) and also chair of an organisation called the Schools Council which produced a history O-level. It was marked by numerous different examiners (it consisted of lots of papers, coursework and so on), all the marks were added up to give a mark out of 200, this was then converted to a percentage (something that was needed amongst other things for moderation with other boards). A new computer system was introduced to manage the board's marking. Head of history is told that they must stop marking out of 200 and mark everything out of 100 because (I really kid you not) the conversion to percentages would otherwise be beyond the computer system's capability. Now my teacher and friend knew that dividing by two is actually quite easy for most computers, in many respects its easier than dividing by 10 but he was unable to convince the company's representatives that this was so. Result: everyone marks using half-size marking scales. Lots of history examiners (being weak humans) find marking with half marks (as they end up having to do) psychologically difficult. Moral: not that you must keep your programmers on a leash but that you need to have effective communication between users and technicians. Just as true in the legal case. I can't really say much constructively about the terms of use without understanding what their goal is and what tolerance of risk the thing is being engineered to. For example, OSM data is going to be imperfect in places (that's right isn't it?) so there will be situations where using it might (because of its inaccuracy) cause loss or damage. There is therefore a risk of being sued. Note: the risk is really of getting the threat and all points after. Some of my clients deal with regular legal threats because of the way their websites work. That creates a load on their time which they can ill afford. So the risk starts there. The end of the line of risk is having to pay damages to someone. Even if a risk is minuscule, you can almost certainly add a little more to a contract to reduce the risk still further; to spell out things more precisely and to make it ever clearer to a reader how unlikely they are to win any case they try to bring. But its all about tolerance. You don't engineer things to perfection, nor do you draft contracts in the same way. It is possible (I've done it) to formally prove that programs meet specifications and (if you are properly paranoid) that the object code and underlying machine do too. When I worked as a computer scientist I did a research project looking at that. But for OSM that would be overkill (we were more worried about things like Ariane V blowing up), just as a gold-plated covers-all-things terms of use would be. I'd also remark that (as I understand it) the proposed terms of use is a copy from elsewhere. Its obviously not right and no-one thinks it is, but its useful to work out what you want in it and what you want it to do. Eg, do we really need to spell out all the DMCA repeat offender/take down stuff? I don't do US law (I'm an English lawyer) but my reading of the US case law is that you do need a policy (as a gateway to the "safe harbors") and you do need to supply certain information to make that effective otherwise you lose the protection, but you don't need to recite nearly as much of S.512 as the draft does. Sorry for the long post - I'm trying to avoid meddling with that which I do not understand. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: > I do think that lawyers can get a bit out of control if you don't keep them > on a short leash, but do whatever you have to, I guess. As Francis Davey just said, there may be a choice. *Especially* if you are not based in a litigation crazy country like the US. > Just make sure that > site visitors aren't caught in the crossfire, and do not end up having to > agree > (explicitly or implicitly) to waive some of their rights. Yes, and please make sure that someone who is six years old can legally use the site. Anything that says "by using this site you confirm that you are umpteen years or older" is just not acceptable. We do mapping with schoolchildren, and we actually want to continue doing that! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Matt Amos writes: >the "personal use only" stuff comes into the "terms of service". you >don't need to agree - it's simply a statement by OSMF that the site is >intended for personal use and that any non-personal use of the site >may result in service being withdrawn. Hmm. I guess not being a lawyer I misunderstood. But it hardly seems necessary to say such a thing - it's not as if OSMF has agreed to provide uninterrupted service in the first place, or, indeed, that anyone using the site for personal use is guaranteed that the site will work. For us non-lawyers, it would clarify things to have a paragraph at the top saying 'these terms of service are not something you need to agree to, they are simply a statement by the OSMF of how we will try to run our website' would solve the problem. >to make this very, very clear: we're not proposing the privacy policy >and terms of service because we're evil, or we're excited by long and >boring legal documents or even that we're anticipating a clear threat. >we're doing it **because our lawyer is recommending it**. I do think that lawyers can get a bit out of control if you don't keep them on a short leash, but do whatever you have to, I guess. Just make sure that site visitors aren't caught in the crossfire, and do not end up having to agree (explicitly or implicitly) to waive some of their rights. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Richard Fairhurst writes: >>The licence should not try to impose additional restrictions on >>people beyond their own country's copyright law (and other applicable >>laws such as database right). > >In which case OSM becomes public domain. Are you saying that the OSM data, currently distributable under the CC-BY-SA licence, is in the public domain now? What about, for example, Ordnance Survey maps from before the database right was introduced, and where the buyer has not agreed to any contract or EULA? >I'm repeating myself, I'm afraid, but you can take two approaches with data. >You can say "it's all PD". Or you can attempt to arm yourself to the teeth >by deploying whatever tools are available in your jurisdiction: copyright, >database right and contract. There is no middle ground. A weaker approach >(say, a copyright-only licence like CC-BY-SA) won't be applicable in all >countries, therefore in some places our data will be freely copiable. This is exactly my point. Copyright law is a trade-off giving limited exclusion rights to copyright holders in order to benefit the public. It is not absolute, so for example, copyrights expire after a certain time period. The scope of copyright in a particular country is decided by that country's legislature. If a certain country decides that maps are freely copyable, then that is a decision for their parliament to take and be answerable to their own voters. I think it is unethical to try to override that, even if software companies do it. (This is certainly an example where what is done in the world of software is not appropriate for free data.) And if in some places our data is freely copyable, so what? It does no harm to anyone outside those countries. Popeye is in the public domain in Europe but that does not mean you can freely import Popeye comics from Europe to the US. I think that 'arming yourself' with all the legal weapons possible is quite the wrong metaphor. The project is not about suing wrongdoers but about making free map data as widely available as possible. >The settled will [1] of the OSM community is that we want a share-alike >licence, Which we have. If you believe that CC-BY-SA is not a share-alike licence, or that somehow it does not work when applied to map data, then let's see the evidence. >That isn't the case for factual data. If you don't impose additional >restrictions over and above statute law, then there will be some countries >in which your data is unprotected, and it will leak out from there. Are you really saying it is possible to launder the OSM data by taking it to Bogoland, where is is 'unprotected', and then copying it and sending it back to Europe, the US or other developed country? If so then why don't you just do that in order to accomplish the relicensing? I may be exaggerating above but I just don't see what the problem is. It seems like legalistic speculation and FUD rather than a real scenario. If anyone can point to a case where this has already happened then I'll believe it - and start investigating how existing map data can be subjected to the same treatment... >Nonetheless if the OSM community wants a share-alike license, it has to use >this sort of language. Everyone who has contributed to OSM so far has done so under CC-BY-SA. I don't see where these large numbers of people are coming from who are unhappy with the existing share-alike terms and pushing for something more onerous. >I kind of think it should be compulsory for anyone posting to legal-talk to >demonstrate that they have read, and understood, Rural vs Feist and Mason vs >Montgomery. I will read those (anyone got a link?). -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Russ Nelson : > > Indeed. Consider what you would say if a lawyer looked at a program > and said "Why do we need all this codese?" Speaking as a lawyer - albeit one who hasn't been on this list nearly long enough to have an opinion, I'm mostly just trying to learn where OSM are coming from - my reaction to the terms of use is "yuk". I'm not sure this it the place to discuss it and whether my views are at all interesting, but I do draft (and more often litigate) contracts like this. Main problem (as I see it) is that its drafted from a US point of view, but purports to be governed by English law. I'm not quite sure how that will work out in practice or what the goal is. Is it clear that OSM is only used in the US and England? If not, why is (only) US law being mentioned when many different legal systems will come into play? If English law is the governing law, then that, surely is the one to go with, subject to having an eye to all other relevant jurisdictions. I work a lot with clients who want to be reasonably legal safe but want contracts to be short and simple and are prepared to take the risk that I haven't put in an extra 30 pages of boilerplate to cover an obscure risk, so that kind of drafting is entirely possible. But its a matter entirely for the client. I'd be happy to write/rewrite this kind of thing for you or give my input, but, as I said, I'm an OSM novice and really don't know what you are after. >From an English law point of view, all caps paragraphs should be removed of course 8-). There's a bunch of stuff I'd rewrite, but its not up to me. All the best. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
