Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
>>Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used >>data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the >>situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the >>Contributor Terms? >> >>In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they >>are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting >>copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may >>not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to >>resolve the future copyright disputes. > > I believe we are well covered here with the current activities of the Data > Working Group and our completed registration under the US Digital Millennium > Copyright Act [1] . As I think you imply, it is best to at least start by > assuming that the Contributor has acted in good faith and simply work with > them to sort things out. Our understanding from legal counsel is that if > there is indeed a copyright infringement, we need to 1) have a mechanism in > place whereby the copyright owner can contact us (done), have a process to > remove data if so required (done), and be seen to do what we say (done - a > Lithuanian case acts a reference). I wasn't aware OSMF was registered under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Make sense. I agree that OSMF is well covered from the consequences for any infringing data which might be uploaded, both in terms of the above and because of the phrasing in the CT 'You represent and warrant' (my understanding is that this accepts fully responsibility by 'You' for any infringement). And I can see how we would deal with the situation were the copyright hold issues a complaint. My remaining concern is with how we deal with a situation were someone has uploaded data which is license compatible (currently) but not compatible with the CT. To give a concrete example: - An existing (pre-CT) user traces data from OS Open Data - They then agree to CT - Another user notices their incompatible edits or they notice the problem themselves At this point we can: 1) Ignore the situation and wait for the copyright holder to contact us 2) De-register the user from CT 3) Remove any incompatible edits In many ways the situation is exactly the same as currently (with the exception of option 2) for copyrighted works and our answer has to date always been to remove the edits. My concern is to get a confirmation that we are intending to do 3 and to raise awareness that there could be a significant number of edits that will need to be reverted during the voluntary sign-up period. Are we in a position to handle this? -- Brian ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
At 05:16 PM 10/08/2010, Brian Quinion wrote: >On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: >> If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new >> Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike >> license written especially for databases. If you are a Public Domain >> license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do >> urge you to give this one a good try. The Contributor Terms is expressly >> written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best >> without all this fuss about procedure. And if you'd just really like all >> this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes. > >One question: > >Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used >data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the >situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the >Contributor Terms? > >In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they >are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting >copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may >not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to >resolve the future copyright disputes. I believe we are well covered here with the current activities of the Data Working Group and our completed registration under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act [1] . As I think you imply, it is best to at least start by assuming that the Contributor has acted in good faith and simply work with them to sort things out. Our understanding from legal counsel is that if there is indeed a copyright infringement, we need to 1) have a mechanism in place whereby the copyright owner can contact us (done), have a process to remove data if so required (done), and be seen to do what we say (done - a Lithuanian case acts a reference). Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft#Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
On 11 August 2010 02:13, Brian Quinion wrote: > There also needs to be a process for people who have signed the > contributor terms in error to un-sign or some way for them to be > assisted in removing their 'tainted' data so they are no longer in > breach. This already came up on the talk-au list, a new contributor was asking if they should have some/all of their contributions reverted because they didn't realise tracing from Nearmap would cause them to be in breach of contract... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
>> Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used >> data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the >> situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the >> Contributor Terms? >> >> In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they >> are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting >> copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may >> not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to >> resolve the future copyright disputes. > > If you have derived data from a source that allows deriving to OSM > then I'd say you are fine. This would cover tracing from aerial > imagery. If we were dealing with the world of copyright and creative > works this would be similar to taking a photograph of a bonsai plant > after being granted permission to take the photograph. > > If you've imported data from a source that allows importation to OSM, > again I'd say that you are okay. > > If you've imported data from a source based only on "license > compatibility" in the last three years you'd have to have been > uninformed or thoughtless to do it without giving the license upgrade > some consideration as stated in the import guidelines since January > 2008. My point was that people can easily get themselves into a situation where they are legally liable by clicking the accept link and there is insufficient warning. IMO it should say in big letters 'If you have imported data for which you are NOT the copyright owner you CAN NOT accept the Contributor Terms' otherwise we are encouraging, even recommending that people breach copyright. There also needs to be a process for people who have signed the contributor terms in error to un-sign or some way for them to be assisted in removing their 'tainted' data so they are no longer in breach. -- Brian ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
On 11 August 2010 01:55, Richard Weait wrote: > It would probably be pretty embarrassing for anybody who made that > sort of error in judgment or declaration of ignorance, so they might > be a little prickly about the subject or try to make it seem like > someone else's fault rather than admitting their error. Even if you have data compatible with the ODBL/CC-by-SA, it doesn't mean the CTs are compatible... Who's fault is it exactly if we did check if the license was ok but wasn't made sufficiently aware of new CTs? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
On 10 August 2010 23:51, Mike Collinson wrote: > Thanks for the support on the ODbL but as Dave says, no, the acceptance is > for the Contributor Terms. As I've said before, I can't legally agree to the CTs due to clause 1 at the very least, I don't have the right to relicense all my contributions... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 10 August 2010 23:04, Mike Collinson wrote: >> If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new >> Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike >> license written especially for databases. > > I support BY-SA (and probably ODBL) but I don't support the > contributor terms, can I agree to the ODBL without agreeing to the new > CTs? > >From reading that e-mail the answer is no, at at this time. I suggest you fit into the "wait and see" category above. Thanks, Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
On 10 August 2010 23:04, Mike Collinson wrote: > If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new > Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike > license written especially for databases. I support BY-SA (and probably ODBL) but I don't support the contributor terms, can I agree to the ODBL without agreeing to the new CTs? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. So, in summary, we'll proceed with a voluntary program of sign-up for the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms [1]. Those that simply want to get on and accept that we won't doing anything daft can sign up.Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will make a stupid decision, can wait and see. There'll be no Decline button. There'll be no switching over to the new license during this phase. We'll show how much of the database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily. We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if you want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your local area, everything will be transparent. If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike license written especially for databases. If you are a Public Domain license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you to give this one a good try. The Contributor Terms is expressly written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best without all this fuss about procedure. And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes. Some supporting notes: () The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have contributed over 98% of the pre-May data. () I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide. I pledge to continue working with *both* objectives in mind. () The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license if data loss is unreasonable. We will issue a formal statement to that effect and attempt to define better what "unreasonable" means. A totally quantitative criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what specific problems may arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted to do something wild. () The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar statement. () We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not. We will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the dev mailing list. You will need: - An ordinary planet dump. - Access to history data. A public 18GB "history dump" is available http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2. The intent is to make this available available on a regular basis with difffs. A full re-generation takes several days. - A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work in progress. () A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us see first if "data loss" really is an issue and what the specific problems might be. Regards to all, Mike License Working Group [1] The new Contributor Terms: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary - Summary http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and links to translations ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
