Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM, pec...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everyone! > > To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT: > > 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; > 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; > > My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT > if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of > third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and > share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things > (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the > license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, > I don't have permission to change nature of the license. > > About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding > clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike > and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done, > what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not. If osm were to add this, then they would not have to relicense everything and not have to ask everyone to "agree". :D, mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
- Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:01 AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources Hi everyone! To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT: 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, I don't have permission to change nature of the license. About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done, what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not. Peter I believe yours is essentially the same point raised by me on 17 Nov at 13:31, then repeated by Andrzej Zaborowski on 20 Nov at 20:24, and which has not yet been answered. Coincidentally I was going to email the LWG about it today, but since you have raised it on the list here, I will refrain from asking the LWG direct for now. Regards David Cheers, Peter. ___ 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com wrote: > > About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding > clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike > and attribution clauses. > I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority of us in the project are open data, open source and free software advocates. To us 'Free' means libré & gratis and 'open' is being able to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on our terms. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 12/9/10, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I think that, even more than "free and open", share-alike is a term that > is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will > already have written half a new license. Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that you received it. Any variation on that, like for example, being able to distribute some part under different terms is share-different, not share-alike. Simple. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
2010/12/9 Frederik Ramm : > Peter, > > pec...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; >> 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; >> >> My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT >> if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of >> third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and >> share alike. > > Do you have a concrete example of a third-party source that does not specify > a concrete license, but requests a general "attribution and share alike"? Or > is this only theoretical? No, there are several real life cases for this. One case for attribution, another for both attribution and share alike. >> While ODbL is good enough for both of these things >> (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the >> license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, >> I don't have permission to change nature of the license. > > In the original setup, data that is not compatible with the CT would not be > accepted, so if someone required attribution and share-alike, that data > would not be compatible. Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community. Anyway, I understand your reasoning, i just want to find a solution to keep as much data as possible in this migration between license regime changes. > The current mood in LWG (as per the latest CT draft) seems to be to allow > such data in provisionally, i.e. you may contribute the data with some sort > of flag (no idea about technicalities) that says "if the license is ever > changed then this data must be removed" or so. That would be a very good starting point for compromise. In fact, I don't say that we couldn't get third-party data owners to relicense their stuff accordingly to PD or else (if license is changed), *problem* is that we don't have much change to do it in nearest future (1 - 2 years). But it is doable (although only working on political level). Anyway, please keep us informed about this. If such option will exist, that would be good solution. > Since your argument in this posting was not that you personally require > share-alike but you were concerned only about entering third-party data, I > would much rather have *less* third-party data and *more* liberty for the > project in the future, than *more data for the price of reduced liberty > later. This would be like taking out a mortgage on what OSM is in 10 years. > We would risk long-term problems for a short-term effect. Well, there is a problem - I create map for *today*. Now, we need a good, solid map. OSM is way to do it. Yes, there are sources which are PD and free and you can do whatever you want with it. But there are also very valuable sources which comes with restrictions. For time these restrictions matched our current license. Now we have to abandon and clean out these sources because license of OSM might change in the future. Now we want to make OSM ideal. Well, it is nice aim, but what worries is this - isn't that possible that these good intentions will just kill OSM? Reality is still there - there are lot of third-party sources which will be untouchable for us just because we have such ideal aim. That worries me. Anyway, thanks for great and detailed reply, I will wait for news about "temporary limit" flag for data, Cheers, Peter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, 80n wrote: Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that you received it. According to *that* definition, ODbL is not a share-alike license. The poster to whom I replied, however, seemed to be of the opinion that data he receives under the provision "share alike only" was ODbL compatible. Not even CC-BY-SA is a share-alike license according to your definition because you may distribute data received under CC-BY-SA under a higher version of the license, which may contain whatever terms Creative Commons deem suitable. So either your "simple" definition of share-alike is correct and everyone in real life is doing it wrong. Or maybe it is too simple. Which was precisely the point I was trying to make. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, pec...@gmail.com wrote: Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community. ODbL has lots of properties - it is a contract, a license, it is share-alike (according to some definitions!), it is free and open, it is maintained by an institution in England, it is based (in part) on database right, it does not cover patents... If a future license change should be deemed necessary by 2/3 of the active mappers according to CT, they will choose a suitable replacement. The CT says that the "free and open" property must be kept. The others need not be kept. It makes sense for the CT to list the required properties of the potential new license, instead of listing those that ODbL has but which are not required of the new license, or else the CT would become too long. If you think that some people do not fully understand section three of the contributor terms - namely that *any* free and open license can be choosen by 2/3 of the active mappers - then maybe the contributor terms need in fact be made more explicit. I would however not recommend to put something in there that says: "For the avoidance of doubt, such license does not necessarily have to have what, at the time of writing this agreement, is known as an 'attribution' or 'share alike' clause" because that would unnecessarily upset people; they would think there's a secret plan to go PD at the next possible opportunity, when in fact the non-requirement of share-alike is more something that gives us greater flexibility for the future. Personally I'd expect any future license to be something similar to ODbL which is share alike at the core, but makes some exceptions where things are deemed unimportant. Any such license would probably not pass a strict "... must have a share alike clause ..." unless one was being cheeky and saying that "having a share-alike clause" is already fulfilled by a license that has a clause regulating the effect of share-alike. You see, even speculating about potential wording gets us into a mire of definitions. And that's all from our (today's) point of view. 10 years ago, I believe, the term "share-alike" wasn't even used; people said "copyleft" back then. Who knows what we will be talking about in 2020? Well, there is a problem - I create map for *today*. Now, we need a good, solid map. OSM is way to do it. Yes, there are sources which are PD and free and you can do whatever you want with it. But there are also very valuable sources which comes with restrictions. For time these restrictions matched our current license. Now we have to abandon and clean out these sources because license of OSM might change in the future. Many of these sources will also change their licenses over time. It is a very interesting topic, maybe for another time, what happens if you import data from a share-alike source today but in 5 years the data source goes PD. Will the data you have imported now have to be deleted and re-imported to take advantage of the greater flexibility, or can it just be "switched"? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Grant Slater writes: >If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new >license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at >least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on >our terms. Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
- Original Message - From: "Frederik Ramm" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources Peter, pec...@gmail.com wrote: 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and share alike. Do you have a concrete example of a third-party source that does not specify a concrete license, but requests a general "attribution and share alike"? Or is this only theoretical? While ODbL is good enough for both of these things (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, I don't have permission to change nature of the license. In the original setup, data that is not compatible with the CT would not be accepted, so if someone required attribution and share-alike, that data would not be compatible. The current mood in LWG (as per the latest CT draft) seems to be to Whilst a "mood" might to some people be enough, it would be fair to point out that it's not legally binding. allow such data in provisionally, i.e. you may contribute the data with some sort of flag (no idea about technicalities) that says "if the license is ever changed then this data must be removed" or so. Actually that's not what the current draft says at all. The draft says the data "may" be deleted. Not "must", not "will be", simply that it "may be". This leaves the door open to the fact that the data might not be deleted. Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if: (a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and (b) There was a guarntee that usch data "WOULD" be removed, and there is no such guarantee. About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done, what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not. I don't think there's a plan to change the "free and open". You are not asking for a clarification, you are asking for additional restrictions (as there are many free and open licenses that are not attribution or share-alike); such additional restrictions would constitute an undue liability for the people who are OSM in the future. (I think it is possible that a reference to a widely accepted definition of the terms "free" and "open" might be included, as a clarification, but as I said, you are not asking for clarification.) On the whole, if one wants to accept imports that are ODbL comaptible but not CT compatible, I think the opt-out version causes less damage than trying to toughen up the CT which might cause all kinds of problems in the future, but I don't like either. Imagine our current data came under some sort of CT that said "the license may be changed but the new license must be attribution and share alike". Now *you* say that ODbL is ok for you, but ODbL does make exemptions from share-alike (namely, for non-substantial extracts for which attribution and share-alike are dropped, and for produced works, for which at leas the share-alike is dropped). I am pretty sure that under such hypothetical CTs, a license change to ODbL would not be possible. I think that, even more than "free and open", share-alike is a term that is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will already have written half a new license. Licenses interact with their legal surroundings; some things we see in ODbL (the non-substantial extracts e.g.) are a direct refelction of the database directive. The legal surroundings can change, and if we have to change the license in the future then a new license might have to reflect the new situation. Any sort of cast-in-stone share-alike requirement will be an unnecessary burden. In another post, I have tried to make the point that it would also be morally wrong (unfair) against our future colleagues in this project to limit their choices. Since your argument in this posting was not that you personally require share-alike but you were concerned only about entering third-party data, I would much rather have *less* third-party data and *more* liberty for the
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, David Groom wrote: Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if: (a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and (b) There was a guarntee that usch data "WOULD" be removed, and there is no such guarantee. As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. You're right in that nobody guarantees that data would be removed in the event of a change of license, but I don't think that this puts the contributor in legal peril. I don't see any problem on the contributor's side. Where I see the problems with this approach is on the OSMF side. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
- Original Message - From: "Frederik Ramm" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources Hi, David Groom wrote: Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if: (a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and (b) There was a guarntee that usch data "WOULD" be removed, and there is no such guarantee. As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. You're right in that nobody guarantees that data would be removed in the event of a change of license, but I don't think that this puts the contributor in legal peril. I don't see any problem on the contributor's side. Where I see the problems with this approach is on the OSMF side. The problem I have from a contributors side is that if, as a contributor I know there is no guarantee that incompatible data will be removed should a licence change occur, and if I know that given the current OSM set up there is in fact no technical mechanism that such data could be identified in the first place, then am I legally in a position to submit such data if I have agreed to the CT's (and /or can I agree to the CT's having submitted such data in the past). Then of course there is the moral question as to whether I believe it would be right to submit such data. David Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > Grant Slater writes: > >>If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new >>license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at >>least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on >>our terms. > > Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active > contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking > contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. > > Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never > do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. Would never do such a thing? OSMF *plan* to stop allowing contributions from those who don't click agree to the next CT. What makes you think they wouldn't stop allowing contributions from those who don't click agree to the one after that? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote: > Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never > do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards the people than any central body, including OSMF. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor > to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while > the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his > contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. Or whatever licence takes its place should ⅔ of “active” contributors decide. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote: > On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com wrote: > > About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding > > clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike > > and attribution clauses. > > I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority > of us in the project are open data, open source and free software > advocates. To us 'Free' means libré & gratis and 'open' is being able > to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. > > If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new > license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at > least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on > our terms. If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Not so simple. I'd much rather have the share-alike on the underlying data to a CC-BY-SA map than the map image itself being share-alike. Sharing the underlying data is not a requirement of CC-SA licenses. So if we go by your definition, CC-BY-SA is NOT share-alike because the data is not shared at all. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:46 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> > Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive > something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that > you received it. > > Any variation on that, like for example, being able to distribute some > part under different terms is share-different, not share-alike. > Simple. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 9 December 2010 23:15, Ed Avis wrote: > Grant Slater writes: > >>If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new >>license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at >>least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on >>our terms. > > Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active > contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking > contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. > > Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never > do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. > OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors (electorate). While a theoretical, I simply do not see it happening. OSMF would end up with a rapidly ageing dead copy of the database and we the contributors would move onto a new-OSM. 1: In last 30 days 12194 users have edited nodes alone. Source: http://www.openstreetmap.org/stats/data_stats.html Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, On 12/10/10 00:15, Ed Avis wrote: Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. Or OSMF could simply sell off the servers, have a grand board meeting on the Maledives with all expenses paid, and declare bankruptcy afterwards. Oh wait, they can do that even now. Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. O the things that are possible in theory! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 10 December 2010 02:13, Simon Ward wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor >> to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while >> the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his >> contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. > > Or whatever licence takes its place should ⅔ of “active” contributors > decide. > That is not what the 1.2 draft says. In fact it specifically says: "You do not need to guarantee that it is" That phrase is specifically there to make it clear that contributors are not required to guarantee anything. A contributor will not be in breach of contract (and therefore liable to OSMF for any loss it suffers) if their contribution infringes any intellectual property right. The reason for that drafting (in contrast to earlier versions) is that it was felt to be entirely unfair to contributors to expect them to carry out a legal analysis they would not be qualified to undertake. So on this point several people writing in this thread are mistaken. Now, several points have been raised and its worth going through some of them: The most general objection - which I have already dealt with at great length and in great detail, but which may have been too lengthy and too detailed because the question is being raised again - is do contributors become liable to third party data set owners, particularly if the output licence is changed by OSMF? In general, _of course_ they do and there's nothing whatsoever that OSMF can do about that. No term in the CT's can absolve a contributor from liability. The best that OSMF could do was give an indemnity, but that would balance things too far the other way. The more realistic objection is: suppose a contributor adds data from a third party source T having checked carefully (perhaps with lawyers) that T will be compatible with ODbL. Later OSMF changes the output licence, which now conflicts with T. What then? Is the contributor giving a blank cheque? Well obviously that depends on T. T might require anyone using data to indemnify against any possible future misuse, assuming such a term were enforceable, anyone using T would likely be in great difficulty. I don't know of a T like that. Ordinarily, T would require that certain conditions of use were met. Provided the _are_ met at the time the contributor contributes the data, then whatever happens later the contributor won't be primarily liable in copyright or database right for what OSMF does afterwards. Most open licences couldn't work any other way. You can make things with licensed data without ensuring that they aren't misuses later. That's not your problem. Eg, the open government licence (UK) requires that certain conditions are met, eg that data protection rules are not broken and that a form of attribution is used. The contributor would be in breach of the licence if they contributed without ensuring attribution at the time of contribution (for instance). But, _after_ the contributor has made their contribution, they don't need to rely on the licence to do any act restricted by IP rights. The contributor has ceased copying/making available to the public etc. The contributor cannot be primarily liable after that, whatever OSMF may do. The only liability that the contributor could have is a secondary one. Either by - authorisation; or - joint enterprise "joint enterprise" is only likely if the contributor stays engaged and votes, say, that there should no longer be attribution under the output licence, contrary to the open government licence, knowing that in doing so OSMF would be secondarily liable (in that they would be supplying data to people who would then break the open government licence by failing to attribute) and "joining in" with OSMF in facilitating that. I think "joint enterprise" is unlikely and of course impossible for a contributor who resists any change or does not stay involved. Authorisation is the possibility I wrote about last time. The question is: does a contributor who contributes under CT 1.2 _authorise_ OSMF to do acts incompatible with IP rights of others. I don't think so. As I said before, the CT's could be made clearer by careful rewording. One suggestion has been that OSMF promises to remove any incompatible data. That - in my view - puts too hight a burden on OSMF. Now OSMF is contractually liable to the contributor if it fails to remove IP violating data. That would put OSMF in an impossible policing position and make it vulnerable to legal attack. The alternative approach (which I originally suggested) of having a cleared list of third party data and a requirement not to add any uncleared data, has its own disadvantages such as: - limiting the range of data that can be added - requiring "clearing" work by OSMF so I do not press it. If those various (and other) objections can be dealt with then
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote: If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet exist. And we don't know why the change might occur. So we don't want to tie people's hands. We do want to explain the principle: which is that the licence should be Free. And the CTs do that. They empower "the people" to be able to react to future circumstance in more than just a token or piecemeal way. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 10 December 2010 08:28, Francis Davey wrote: > > Eg, the open government licence (UK) requires that certain conditions > are met, eg that data protection rules are not broken and that a form > of attribution is used. The contributor would be in breach of the > licence if they contributed without ensuring attribution at the time > of contribution (for instance). > > But, _after_ the contributor has made their contribution, they don't > need to rely on the licence to do any act restricted by IP rights. The > contributor has ceased copying/making available to the public etc. The > contributor cannot be primarily liable after that, whatever OSMF may > do. > My mistake: I doubt that the UK open government licence is sufficiently "viral" for this to be a possibility. I am sure readers can think of some more specific example of licence/licence violation and it might be useful to have one concrete example to work with. Moral: anything I type before 9:00am is going to be suspect. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote: We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards the people than any central body, including OSMF. This is not how I see it. I think the balance needs to be towards the project as a whole, not towards the individual and his whims. The OSMF doesn't need to come into this at all - if you want to formulate a CT that lets 2/3 of the project force OSMF's hand in any possible license change, I'd have no problem with that. You speak of "asserting rights" and make it sound as if this was the natural thing to do. Instead, what we are discussing here is the opposite; we are discussing the granting of rights, without which the project would not be possible. We are currently using one way for the individual to grant rights to the community (the CC-BY-SA license), and we are transitioning to another way for the individual to grant rights to the community (the CT with license change option). I think it is obvious that the more you "assert" and the less you "grant", the less you trust the community. I've been called a communist for this but I believe that in our project, it is necessary to drop the selfish thought of your contribution being your personal property that you need to "assert rights over" because you cannot trust the community to do the right thing with it. If you are not prepared to *give* your data to OSM - if you'd rather only *lend* your data so you can sit and watch how the project develops and withdraw your contribution should they take what you view to be a wrong step in the future - then maybe you aren't ready for a large, interconnected, collaborative project like this. You can close your account on flickr at any time and take down your photos with it without hurting anyone in that community - but except for the most exotic cases you cannot remove your contribution from OSM without causing damage that is larger than your contribution. Maybe, then, the community should view your contribution with the same suspicion that you seem to view the community: "Let's rather not take his data, who knows what he's up to." Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Grant Slater writes: >>The definition of active >>contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking >>contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. >OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a >period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts (or require that any newly created account must agree to the new policy) >and do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors >(electorate). While a theoretical, I simply do not see it happening. That is reassuring. I don't see it as realistic either, and I hope it won't be attempted. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Frederik Ramm writes: >Or OSMF could simply sell off the servers, have a grand board meeting on >the Maledives with all expenses paid, and declare bankruptcy afterwards. > >Oh wait, they can do that even now. I do rather agree with you that trying to nail down and exclude all the nefarious and evil things that might be done by the OSMF is a pointless endeavour. It is the same kind of paranoia that brought us the overcomplicated and legalistic ODbL licence. It probably makes more sense to state things like 'there should be a vote of active contributors before any licence change' or 'the OSMF is there to support the project but not control it' as community expectations or a kind of 'constitution', rather than trying to put them into the CTs or other legal documents. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:48:47AM +, Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote: > >If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. > >This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as > >“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. > > But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet exist. > > And we don't know why the change might occur. > > So we don't want to tie people's hands. If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors, then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a change. It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible, and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again. > We do want to explain the principle: which is that the licence > should be Free. I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was explicitly referenced. Well, I would be, but in light of what I have just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. > They empower "the people" to be able to react to future circumstance > in more than just a token or piecemeal way. ODbL has an upgrade clause. We think it’s going to be suitable for the data for a while, but if necessary it can evolve. We had the opportunity to feed back on the ODbL, and my $deity did we by the masses, and it is likely we will do for future revisions. We have a say in how it can evolve. The CTs just want to leave it completely open. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
In general, I think you completely miss the point. Wherever you might like me to go, I am part of the community, so are all of the other people who disagree with you. If a small number of people coming up with the CTs wants to ignore me and others for the sake of getting something out, then I don’t think they are acting in the best interests of the community. *I* can compromise to form something agreeable, can you/they? On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:54:08AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote: > >We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s > >good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is > >deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising > >you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards > >the people than any central body, including OSMF. > > This is not how I see it. I think the balance needs to be towards > the project as a whole, not towards the individual and his whims. […] > I think it is obvious that the more you "assert" and the less you > "grant", the less you trust the community. I've been called a > communist for this but I believe that in our project, it is > necessary to drop the selfish thought of your contribution being > your personal property that you need to "assert rights over" because > you cannot trust the community to do the right thing with it. That’s really just a load of bollocks, and can be turned on its head. In fact, I swore I just said that the other way around. Oh yes, it’s in the bit of my email you quoted above! Anyway, the rights are granted to the OSMF, who on the face of it are acting on behalf of the community, but they are *not* the community. If we’re trusting the community, which, believe it or not, is something I wholly support, then there doesn’t need to be a broad rights grant, and there doesn’t need to be a relicensing clause, because if it ever again comes to the point that we need to change things like this, then the whole community can be called upon to decide, not some abitrary fraction of it, not based on whether they are still actively contributing (old contributors are still contributors). > If you are not prepared to *give* your data to OSM - if you'd rather > only *lend* your data so you can sit and watch how the project > develops and withdraw your contribution should they take what you > view to be a wrong step in the future - then maybe you aren't ready > for a large, interconnected, collaborative project like this. I’m not prepared to give my data to OSM while it insists it needs these broad rights. I am prepared to give my data to OSM when I feel it will act within constraints. The permissions I grant to OSM are the same as the permissions I grant to anyone else when individually licensing, and they are given when certain conditions are met, like when individually licensing. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors, then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a change. It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible, and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again. If Creative Commons (to take the current licence) or ODC (to take the next one) suddenly turn evil, are unable to react to changes in the law, or produce a licence that you don't like, OSM(F) should be able to react to that in more than a token way. I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was explicitly referenced. I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another party's definitions. They should be free to find their own. Well, I would be, but in light of what I have just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. ODbL has an upgrade clause. We think it’s going to be suitable for the data for a while, but if necessary it can evolve. We had the opportunity to feed back on the ODbL, and my $deity did we by the masses, and it is likely we will do for future revisions. We have a say in how it can evolve. The CTs just want to leave it completely open. The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. A good example of a very successful project that decided it was cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Francis, thank you for your detailed explanation. The position I am in is that I have submitted data which is based on CC-BY-SA sources, my points below are base upon this fact - Original Message - From: "Francis Davey" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources On 10 December 2010 02:13, Simon Ward wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. Or whatever licence takes its place should ⅔ of “active” contributors decide. That is not what the 1.2 draft says. In fact it specifically says: "You do not need to guarantee that it is" That phrase is specifically there to make it clear that contributors are not required to guarantee anything. A contributor will not be in breach of contract (and therefore liable to OSMF for any loss it suffers) if their contribution infringes any intellectual property right. The reason for that drafting (in contrast to earlier versions) is that it was felt to be entirely unfair to contributors to expect them to carry out a legal analysis they would not be qualified to undertake. So on this point several people writing in this thread are mistaken. Now, several points have been raised and its worth going through some of them: The most general objection - which I have already dealt with at great length and in great detail, but which may have been too lengthy and too detailed because the question is being raised again - is do contributors become liable to third party data set owners, particularly if the output licence is changed by OSMF? In general, _of course_ they do and there's nothing whatsoever that OSMF can do about that. No term in the CT's can absolve a contributor from liability. The best that OSMF could do was give an indemnity, but that would balance things too far the other way. The above would seem to indicate to me that I probably should not agree to the CT's as I would then be liable for infringing the 3rd parties licence terms. The more realistic objection is: suppose a contributor adds data from a third party source T having checked carefully (perhaps with lawyers) that T will be compatible with ODbL. Later OSMF changes the output licence, which now conflicts with T. What then? Is the contributor giving a blank cheque? Well obviously that depends on T. T might require anyone using data to I'm afraid I don't understand the answer to your own question. Why does " Is the contributor giving a blank cheque?" depend on T. Surely the question of whether there IS a "blank cheque" rests on the CT's. What the result of that blank cheque may be, may well depend on T, but I cant see how the existence or otherwise of the "blank" cheque rests on T. indemnify against any possible future misuse, assuming such a term were enforceable, anyone using T would likely be in great difficulty. I don't know of a T like that. Ordinarily, T would require that certain conditions of use were met. Provided the _are_ met at the time the contributor contributes the data, then whatever happens later the contributor won't be primarily liable in copyright or database right for what OSMF does afterwards. Most open licences couldn't work any other way. You can make things with licensed data without ensuring that they aren't misuses later. That's not your problem. The above would seem to indicate to me that I could agree to the CT's, as I would not be infringing the 3rd parties licence terms in doing so. Eg, the open government licence (UK) requires that certain conditions are met, eg that data protection rules are not broken and that a form of attribution is used. The contributor would be in breach of the licence if they contributed without ensuring attribution at the time of contribution (for instance). But, _after_ the contributor has made their contribution, they don't need to rely on the licence to do any act restricted by IP rights. The contributor has ceased copying/making available to the public etc. The contributor cannot be primarily liable after that, whatever OSMF may do. The only liability that the contributor could have is a secondary one. Either by - authorisation; or - joint enterprise "joint enterprise" is only likely if the contributor stays engaged and votes, say, that there should no longer be attribution under the output licence, contrary to the open government licence, knowing that in doing so OSMF would be secondarily liable (in that they would be supplying data to people who would then
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > > Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard > that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the > control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the > future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once. > > Yes, the current license is *so* wrong that the project is a complete failure. There are no contributors, and nobody is able to use the content. Measured by the simple criteria of whether or not OSM is successful then you just can't say that it's got the wrong license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a > period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and > do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors > (electorate). While a theoretical, I simply do not see it happening. But that's the current plan (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan). PHASE 3 - Existing Contributor Mandatory Re-licensing (Phase 2 + 5 or 10 weeks). Surely if it happens once, it'll happen again. If OSM switches to CT 1.2 in 2011, then switches to CT 2.0 in 2012, then switches to CT 3.0 in 2013, people who agreed to CT 1.2 but not to CT 2.0 won't get a chance to vote in 2013. > OSMF would end up with a rapidly ageing dead copy of the database and > we the contributors would move onto a new-OSM. That might just be what happens. But whenever someone says that, they get accused of spreading FUD. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Ed Avis schrieb: Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of how "active contributors" are defined? Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Robert Kaiser writes: >>Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. > >Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear >definition of how "active contributors" are defined? It says they have "edited the Project" in the past 3 months. But the point is that this could, in principle, be skewed just by denying write access to people who don't agree. You are right that it is defined in fairly plain language, and I should not cast doubt on that point, so please delete the words 'however defined' above. Sorry. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive > something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that > you received it. "Share alike" was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a derivative work, as opposed to that which creates a collective work. Creative commons has created its own, international, definition, but it roughly mirrors the US definitions (see http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html). The concept of "share alike" embraces and extends the earlier concept of "copyleft". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/) "Share alike" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is "free and open". I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority (perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too* often these days. So I think that "free and open" is more like "share-alike" in being a term that is open to interpretation rather than a factual property. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is > "free and open". I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the > contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority > (perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too* > often > these days. I've started a discussion of this at http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Open_Database_License Specifically, I question whether or not ODbL satisfies the second criterion: [quote]The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".[/quote] ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: > > > >If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list > >of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors, > >then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a > >change. It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible, > >and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again. > > If Creative Commons (to take the current licence) or ODC (to take > the next one) suddenly turn evil, are unable to react to changes in > the law, or produce a licence that you don't like, OSM(F) should be > able to react to that in more than a token way. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. > >I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was > >explicitly referenced. > > I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another > party's definitions. They should be free to find their own. How do you find the OKD limiting? To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. > >Well, I would be, but in light of what I have > >just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the > >future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia > >bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. > > It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been > necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years > of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. May be. Yes, back to the fear, I see. > The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be > substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad “free and open licence” of the CTs. > A good example of a very successful project that decided it was > cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be > licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, > Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the > freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written > and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. I don’t see how that affects this. The kernel developers (rather Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The above issues are completely irrelevant. I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only, and have always accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence. > Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people > regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally unnecessary. > But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing > other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up > with the wrong licence once. Yay, more fear. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:33:59PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Ed Avis schrieb: > >Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. > > Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear > definition of how "active contributors" are defined? It is quite well defined but not well thought out. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Ed Avis schrieb: >> >> Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. > > Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of > how "active contributors" are defined? There's not a clear definition of how 67% is defined, though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Meme. I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was explicitly referenced. I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another party's definitions. They should be free to find their own. How do you find the OKD limiting? I don't. To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be limited by it? I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM I agree. doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. You are wrong in thinking that I am "dismissing it entirely". I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing the OKD would be a no-brainer. To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data. Well, I would be, but in light of what I have just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. May be. And OSM isn't the only major free/open project that has had to be relicenced. The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad “free and open licence” of the CTs. The reason I mention Wikipedia is that it shows that is not sufficient to prevent relicencing. A good example of a very successful project that decided it was cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. I don’t see how that affects this. You don't see how an actual example of licence lock-in having detrimental effects on a project's users is relevant to a discussion of licence lock-in? The kernel developers (rather Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The above issues are completely irrelevant. Their reasons, whatever they were, have had detrimental consequences for future users. The *fact* that this has caused issues is entirely relevant. I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only, and have always accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence. That's probably because it is. Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally unnecessary. I have provided historical examples of project licencing and relicencing and I have argued that they show this not to be the case. But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once. Yay, more fear. Which part of what I wrote there is factually or logically incorrect? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: > >To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s > >sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. > > You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be > limited by it? No. I said I don’t think it is sufficient, a different thing entirely. I would actually prefer the licence choice to be more limited than “anything that meets the OKD”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: > >I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for > >those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM > > I agree. > > >doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in > >dismissing it entirely. > > You are wrong in thinking that I am "dismissing it entirely". > > >I’d like a common standard for open data. If > >the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. > > If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, > choosing the OKD would be a no-brainer. > > To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the > OKD is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think > the OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open > data. You think: OSM should not be limited by an external definition. OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting, You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a good idea for OSMF to reference it). I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software many, if any, favours. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 12:10, Simon Ward wrote: You think: OSM should not be limited by an external definition. OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting, You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a good idea for OSMF to reference it). I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that way. This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD. I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. > Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is needed. ;-) If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. Fear, uncertainty and what? If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software many, if any, favours. My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* definition should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: > >>It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been > >>necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years > >>of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. > > > >May be. > > And OSM isn't the only major free/open project that has had to be > relicenced. No, it isn’t, and there is an argument for allowing some breathing room, but I think it is unnecessary to leave it wide open. > >>The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be > >>substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. > > > >I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad > >“free and open licence” of the CTs. > > The reason I mention Wikipedia is that it shows that is not > sufficient to prevent relicencing. I don’t necessarily want relicensing to be prevented, but I think doing it should be discouraged. The Wikipedia relicensing was similarly a big effort, and they actually sought the clause, which was time‐limited, to allow them to relicense. The FSF could have just said “no” (but they listened to reason, and ultimately Wikipedia was still freely licensed). It was a big step, and proportionally a lot of thought went into it. A lot of thought has gone into applying the ODbL to OSM (sadly not much of it went to the CTs). Then we just give OSMF blanket rights, and define some very open conditions for relicensing, and the sense of proportion is lost. > >>A good example of a very successful project that decided it was > >>cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be > >>licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, > >>Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the > >>freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written > >>and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. > > > >I don’t see how that affects this. > > You don't see how an actual example of licence lock-in having > detrimental effects on a project's users is relevant to a discussion > of licence lock-in? > >The kernel developers (rather > >Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The > >above issues are completely irrelevant. > > Their reasons, whatever they were, have had detrimental consequences > for future users. The *fact* that this has caused issues is entirely > relevant. How widespread is this really? The types of devices where this has become a problem also tend to be running Busybox which has a history of pulling people up for licence violations. It gives the manufacturers bad press, and we get to avoid these devices for the free software friendly competition (ok, so there wasn’t much competition in the TiVo space at the time). We got new licences to choose from that countered “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget the large projects, most notably Apache, that use even more permissive licences (the old GPL vs BSD arguments, oh the flames). > >I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only, and have always > >accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence. > > That's probably because it is. > > >>Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people > >>regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. > > > >Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral. I > >wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally > >unnecessary. > > I have provided historical examples of project licencing and > relicencing and I have argued that they show this not to be the > case. I do not think arguing by counter example is sufficient proof here. Those historical examples were special cases in their own rights, and a large number of projects have also survived without the need to ever relicense. > >>But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing > >>other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up > >>with the wrong licence once. > > > >Yay, more fear. > > Which part of what I wrote there is factually or logically incorrect? I didn’t say it what you wrote was incorrect. I implied that you were using the current “wrong” licence choice as a reason for leaving it wide open because of the fear that it will happen again. I’m not after the freedom to relicense here, I’m after the freedom for the data to be useful. I don’t believe the freedom to relicense plays a large part in the continued usefulness of the data, the licence itself helps more with that, and if it doesn’t, why are we moving to it again? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote: > >I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I > >think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, > >you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that > >correct? > > I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that > way. This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD. So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred from it being open to debate, and that the OKD would limit this)? I’m struggling to make sense of this. I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again: Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use, analyse, modify, and redistribute? If the answer is “no”, what does it mean? If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition satisfy the OKD? In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”? Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”? Where is it lacking? I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science Commons protocal for open access too? Anything else? > >I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is > >currently left undefined and open to interpretation. > > > >Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset > >that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is > >always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open > >Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets > >mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known > >to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you > >can’t do anything with it). > > > >If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in > >a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is > >limiting to OSM. > > And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is > needed. ;-) I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet: Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect? The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses. I will also add: When defining free software we refer to the free software definition. It does not limit or harm software that is intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?) > >If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating > >around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big > >loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so > >than I did previously. > > Fear, uncertainty and what? Now you’re getting it! :) > My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* > definition should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should. Why leave it undefined? Is this another way of saying we leave it wide open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in future? If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree with that approach. Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged, and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage at the time. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote: I think it is unnecessary to leave it wide open. "free and open" doesn't leave it wide open. I don’t necessarily want relicensing to be prevented, but I think doing it should be discouraged. The Wikipedia relicensing was similarly a big effort, and they actually sought the clause, which was time‐limited, to allow them to relicense. The FSF could have just said “no” (but they listened to reason, and ultimately Wikipedia was still freely licensed). It was a big step, and proportionally a lot of thought went into it. A lot of thought has gone into applying the ODbL to OSM (sadly not much of it went to the CTs). Then we just give OSMF blanket rights, and define some very open conditions for relicensing, and the sense of proportion is lost. Relicencing is, I agree, a drastic move. But we are talking about making it possible or not here. And it is something that requires a convincing vote to achieve under the CTs. How widespread is this really? DRM, SaaS, Software Patents and Tivoisation? Apple, Microsoft and Google seem to be doing OK from them. The types of devices where this has become a problem also tend to be running Busybox which has a history of pulling people up for licence violations. It gives the manufacturers bad press, and we get to avoid these devices for the free software friendly competition (ok, so there wasn’t much competition in the TiVo space at the time). We got new licences to choose from that countered “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. the large projects, most notably Apache, that use even more permissive licences (the old GPL vs BSD arguments, oh the flames). Let's also not forget that Apache's corporate-friendly permissive licencing is the reason Google have been taken to court by Oracle. I do not think arguing by counter example is sufficient proof here. Those historical examples were special cases in their own rights, and a They are examples of large projects. That they had their own specific reasons for relicencing underlines the fact that relicencing is a general problem rather than one that only problem or opportunity X can lead to. large number of projects have also survived without the need to ever relicense. Smaller projects, yes. I didn’t say it what you wrote was incorrect. I implied that you were using the current “wrong” licence choice as a reason for leaving it wide open because of the fear that it will happen again. And I implied that calling an argument that presents its case based on evidence and argument "fear" was a rhetorical move rather than any kind of refutation of the argument. I’m not after the freedom to relicense here, I’m after the freedom for the data to be useful. I don’t believe the freedom to relicense plays a large part in the continued usefulness of the data, the licence itself helps more with that, and if it doesn’t, why are we moving to it again? And why didn't OSM just use it to start with??/ - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 13:14, Simon Ward wrote: So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred I would certainly hope not. I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again: > Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use, analyse, modify, and redistribute? Presumably. If the answer is “no”, what does it mean? If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition satisfy the OKD? I would certainly hope so. In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”? It doesn't. Using it as a normative document will set and limit the terms of debate where it is referred to. This may be a good thing, it may not, but it is how it will work. Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”? Where is it lacking? I believe that it does. It's based on the DFSG, but nobody's perfect. I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science Commons protocal for open access too? Anything else? Heck, no. I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet: Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect? I am wearily familiar with the concept. The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses. I will also add: When defining free software we refer to the free software definition. It does not limit or harm software that is intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?) I certainly refer to the FSD. Now you’re getting it! :) I've the feeling I am. ;-) Why leave it undefined? To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that if the community could always say "It's the OKD, stupid!". :-) To avoid *another* dependency on another project. To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and AGPL opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is "discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r". To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by self-identified time-wasters. Is this another way of saying we leave it wide open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in future? If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree with that approach. I am saying we cannot know what future requirements will be except that they may not be the same as present requirements. More detail is not always better. The FSD is much less detailed than the DFSG, and in my opinion it is by far the clearer and less confusing document. Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged, and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage at the time. A vote is not pressing a little button. Not in that sense at least. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:04:21PM +, Rob Myers wrote: > Relicencing is, I agree, a drastic move. But we are talking about > making it possible or not here. And it is something that requires a > convincing vote to achieve under the CTs. I do not believe relicensing is impossible without it being included in the CTs. I also believe that the upgrade clauses in the licences give enough flexibility. However, my current position has falled back to “have your stupid relicensing clauses, just make them clear, well‐defined and unambigous”. > >space at the time). We got new licences to choose from that countered > >“Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget > > We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. Most (I’m guessing) free software projects just use the FSF’s copyright statement which includes the “version X or any later version” upgrade clause. The Linux kernel (or parts of it) is licensed only under version 2 of the GPL, no upgrade clause. That is by choice of some kernel developers, some do not like GPL v3 or other licences and do not want the kernel to move to them. With CC by-sa and the ODbL, upgrade clauses exist in the licences themselves. There is already a route to upgrade. I do not think the Linux kernel licence situation is comparable to one where most of the community wishes to switch to another licence and where there are upgrade clauses that can be used. > >I do not think arguing by counter example is sufficient proof here. > >Those historical examples were special cases in their own rights, and a > > They are examples of large projects. That they had their own > specific reasons for relicencing underlines the fact that > relicencing is a general problem rather than one that only problem > or opportunity X can lead to. > > >large number of projects have also survived without the need to ever > >relicense. > > Smaller projects, yes. A general problem does not require an over‐generalised solution. Not every large project has wanted or needed to relicense. This line of conversation appears not to be getting very far… > >I didn’t say it what you wrote was incorrect. I implied that you were > >using the current “wrong” licence choice as a reason for leaving it wide > >open because of the fear that it will happen again. > > And I implied that calling an argument that presents its case based > on evidence and argument "fear" was a rhetorical move rather than > any kind of refutation of the argument. Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on fear). Do you have any pointers? :) > >I’m not after the freedom to relicense here, I’m after the freedom for > >the data to be useful. I don’t believe the freedom to relicense plays a > >large part in the continued usefulness of the data, the licence itself > >helps more with that, and if it doesn’t, why are we moving to it again? > > And why didn't OSM just use it to start with? Because ODbL didn’t exist. That doesn’t really challenge my belief that the freedom to relicence is only a small part in the continued usefulness of the data. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote: >> We got new licences to choose from that countered >> “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget > > We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. They can. But the lead developer doesn't want to. The fact that he isn't forced to move against his wishes is a feature, not a bug. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Anthony schrieb: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Ed Avis schrieb: Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of how "active contributors" are defined? There's not a clear definition of how 67% is defined, though. If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser wrote: > > If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's > abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. > There's no such thing as "legalese" as I've said before. The CT's don't say "67%" they say "2/3", which is completely clear. The phrase "at least a 2/3 majority vote" has a pretty clear and unambiguous meaning. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 18:31, Simon Ward wrote: Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on fear). Do you have any pointers? :) My argument is neither motivated by fear nor requires fear in order to make the point that I believe it does. And I do not believe that the general argument in favour of allowing relicencing does either. I think we both agree that the on-going usefulness of the data is important. If we differ on what the likely events that might affect that usefulness are then that doesn't mean that either of our arguments are emotive rather than rational. the freedom to relicence is only a small part in the continued usefulness of the data. Small, unlikely, but important. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser wrote: >> >> If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's >> abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. >> > > There's no such thing as "legalese" as I've said before. The CT's > don't say "67%" they say "2/3", which is completely clear. The phrase > "at least a 2/3 majority vote" has a pretty clear and unambiguous > meaning. It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Anthony schrieb: >> It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. > > 2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling "he's > crazy!" - can you clarify what you mean? It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony wrote: > It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have > to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active > contributors. > It is extremely unlikely that any English court would think so. The phrase "a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors" would be understood in its natural way, namely that 2/3 (or more) of all active contributors must vote in favour of the change. If there was to be a quorum then the terms would say so. However changing "active contributors" to "all active contributors" ought to dispel any shadow of a doubt on that point and does not read unnaturally, so I'd suggest it as a change. NB: we've been asked to suggest changes to the CT's if we think they are unclear. I cannot remember whether you caught that. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Francis Davey writes: > > On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony wrote: > > It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have > > to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active > > contributors. > > > > It is extremely unlikely that any English court would think so. The > phrase "a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors" would be > understood in its natural way, namely that 2/3 (or more) of all active > contributors must vote in favour of the change. If there was to be a > quorum then the terms would say so. I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. It is nowadays a good percentage even in the election of the parliament. In year 2007 in Finland the turnout seemed to be 67.9%. And because all active contributors for sure would not vote for "Yes" it would mean in practice that OSM license could never be changed. Myself I have been thinking that the 2/3 majority means the share of those who vote. Obviously it would be better to write it clearly into the CTs how we want it to be interpreted and not to ask it afterwards from any English court. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%: "An 'active contributor' is defined as [someone who] has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks." This means that anyone who does not at least reply to the email is not an active contributor. Now of course, when asked by email to respond either "yes" or "no", people could also respond "bugger off" but that would simply count as a "no". Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 14 December 2010 09:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > > I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would > reach > 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. It is nowadays a > good percentage even in the election of the parliament. In year 2007 in > Finland > the turnout seemed to be 67.9%. And because all active contributors for sure > would not vote for "Yes" it would mean in practice that OSM license could > never > be changed. Myself I have been thinking that the 2/3 majority means the share > of > those who vote. Obviously it would be better to write it clearly into the CTs > how we want it to be interpreted and not to ask it afterwards from any English > court. > Well, 2/3 of those who vote and 2/3 of all active contributors are very different in terms of how much support a change needs to get. If a change is really popular then it should be possible to engage 2/3 of those who are actively contributing enough to get them to vote in favour. Parliamentary votes aren't really comparable. Anyway, this is a governance issue rather than a legal one. As drafted the CT's will require 2/3 of all active contributors, not merely those who vote. If there's a desire for a different effect, then some change in drafting would be needed. If not, then it is probably worth nailing the point as I have indicated. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Francis, On 12/14/10 10:38, Francis Davey wrote: Anyway, this is a governance issue rather than a legal one. As drafted the CT's will require 2/3 of all active contributors, not merely those who vote. As written in another message, I believe that in this case an active contributor is one who votes (or, at least, replies to the email - the CTs don't say whether the email used to verify active-contributor status is the vote email at the same time, but it might be). Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 14 December 2010 09:42, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > As written in another message, I believe that in this case an active > contributor is one who votes (or, at least, replies to the email - the CTs > don't say whether the email used to verify active-contributor status is the > vote email at the same time, but it might be). > That was a drafting point I raised earlier, namely that "responds within 3 weeks" needs qualification, though its probably implied that "responds" means "responds to a request to vote", as it stands it feels uncomfortably vague. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Frederik Ramm writes: > > Hi, > > On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > > I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach > > 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. > > The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%: > > "An 'active contributor' is defined as [someone who] has maintained a > valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 > weeks." Right, I apologize. I was remembering that we have about 15000 active contributors but actually we have just that amount of potentially active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Frederik Ramm writes: >> On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: >> > I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll > would reach >> > 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. >> >> The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%: >> >> "An 'active contributor' is defined as [someone who] has maintained a >> valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 >> weeks." > > Right, I apologize. I was remembering that we have about 15000 active > contributors but actually we have just that amount of potentially active > contributors. Easy mistake to make when an agreement defines a term in a way which completely contradicts the plain language meaning of the term. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
>> Also, the idea that the "vote" could be conducted via email is rather >> humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the "hanging chads" in >> that scenario. > > I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong > in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any other > electronic means. Maybe it worked for usenet, but that was back when having an email address was a sign of intelligence. Besides the obvious problem of parsing the various responses to determine intent, there's also the issue that email is completely insecure and the question of how to handle contributors who have multiple accounts under different email addresses. > There are of course problems, but then so are there with paper ballots as we > all know. I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony wrote: > > I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either. > What would you suggest? A website with some form of authentication given to contributors when they sign up to the CT's? -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony wrote: >> >> I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either. > > What would you suggest? I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says "I haven't already voted under another account", and click "Yes" or "No". Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing the vote could manually check for and rule on invalid votes due to ballot stuffing. Something like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony wrote: > I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says "I > haven't already voted under another account", and click "Yes" or "No". > Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing > the vote could manually check for and rule on invalid votes due to > ballot stuffing. Something like > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote I should add that I think it's a terrible idea in the first place. Especially with the threshold for eligibility being so low (essentially one edit every 4 months). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Francis Davey schrieb: There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong in principle in holding a vote by email You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even the slightest guarantee that a normal email is transmitted to the right recipient correctly. or indeed by any other electronic means. I vote for "other electronic means", then. ;-) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 15 December 2010 19:06, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Francis Davey schrieb: >> >> There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong >> in principle in holding a vote by email > > You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even the > slightest guarantee that a normal email is transmitted to the right > recipient correctly. > No, those are practical rather than principled objections and there are ways of overcoming them (albeit with their own practical problems). NB: I'm not saying that its a good idea or not, I'm simply not making comment on practicalities. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
