[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hello This morning we held a second meeting of the OSM licensing working group. Steve, Grant, Jordan, Mikel and representation from WSGR were on the call. We briefly reviewed the outcome of the technical group meeting earlier this week. Most of the general code for allowing people to agree to the license, etc, is completed, and ready for implementation within the overall integrated plan. Work continues on the timeline and organization of license community. We'll have details as soon as this is ready, hopefully by Monday. WSGR has returned their comments on the text of the ODbL to Jordan for review. They plan to talk early next week to work out final details. After they have spoken, we will have our next working group meeting, on Thursday. Best Mikel & the Licensing Working Group___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hi, Mikel Maron wrote: > WSGR has returned their comments on the text of the ODbL to Jordan for > review. Can I see the text they have been commenting on, and can I see their comments? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
From: Frederik Ramm > Mikel Maron wrote: > > WSGR has returned their comments on the text of the ODbL to Jordan for > > review. > > Can I see the text they have been commenting on, and can I see their > comments? We want to let them finish this discussion, and then the license text will be posted publicly. It's very close at this point. Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Thanks Peter. That's a good summation of the reasoning for an evolving license. And essential questions on the process. That process must be open and engaging. There will be more details next week. Best, Mikel From: Peter Miller To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:36:47 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22 On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > 2009/1/22 Mikel Maron : >> Hi Fredrik >> >>> Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? >>> >>> Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the >>> public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job >>> to take >>> the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable >>> from >>> it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our >>> feedback and >>> then again wait for the lawyers to respond? >> >> At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a >> community of >> users >> and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement >> of the >> license. >> >> We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The >> license won't >> be perfect, >> but there will definitely be a process for feedback and >> improvements, and >> the license >> will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick >> starts this >> process >> by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. > > By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already? What if the > part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the > passing of new versions without explicit agreement? > > I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3 > licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends. > AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you expose > it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the > license as it evolved. I believe that it will be necessary for the license to be able to evolve within strict constraints without going back to all the contributors for approval because that would be impossible. Indeed it is already be impossible, but we have to live with that and we will loose content as a result. If one does not allow the license to evolve then surely it will not be able to adapt to new IPR laws and situations? I am however very very interested in who will be able to change the license and how much? Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I don't know because I haven't seen the text. Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said. Also, we are being told that there will be very open consultation no future changes to the license. Lets hope that Mikel's energy leads to better engagement in the process. Certainly it is a great improvement to have someone to talk to than nobody even if we still have a way to go. Regards, Peter > > > Cheers > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
From: OJ W > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > > The license won't be perfect, but there will be a process for feedback and > > improvements, and the license will get there. > > This phraseology sounds very businesslike. I'm sure I've heard the > "we know x is dismal but we've agreed to it anyway" phrase many times > at work, often followed by "if we suddenly find ourselves with nothing > better to do in the future, we might consider improving it" > > (not a comment on the proposed license, just on the email justifying it) Wow, I sounds business-y. Guess I was being careful with the phrasing. Though I'm sure that "won't be perfect" is not that the same as "dismal". Anyhow, dudes, I'll try to sound more unprofessional in future emails. -Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Peter Miller wrote: > There is huge difference between the majority being ask one > by one to 'relicense or leave now', and one where we are > asked if we support it and then later being asked to accept > the majority verdict (which is very likely to be in favour > of re-licensing). On reflection, I think having a community-wide "indicative" vote first, and a "do you agree to relicense?" process afterwards, would do much more harm than good. The 99% of people who don't subscribe to legal-talk simply won't understand it. They will vote on the first one, then get mails about the second one, think "oh, I've done this", and ignore it. Now you can say that we will explain the difference fully in the e-mail, and that's a nice idea, but as the poor unfortunate responsible for writing the Potlatch splash screen, I can tell you that OSM contributors do not read anything put in front of them. Even if it is in flashing 72pt red/pink text and uses the AS3 extended API to punch the user in the nose. I think TomH would tell you the same story about the messaging system e-mails, which say PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE in four different languages with a nice border of stars, and yet which people still ignore. By all means have an optional _poll_ beforehand among people who care. Maybe put something on talk@, the user diaries, the forum and OpenGeoData to gauge people's views; add a little box on the LH of the main page in the same way as the SOTM ad that appears there. Give people the chance to express their views if they care. But a compulsory whole-community vote will just confuse the matter. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651101.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
andrzej zaborowski wrote: > AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you > expose it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any > version of the license as it evolved. ...is true, but rather pales into insignificance against the fact that CC-BY-SA is almost certainly not valid for data, so anyone with heavy-enough lawyers and a disregard for community opinion can do whatever they like with our data already. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651125.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Peter Miller wrote: > I am however very very interested in who will be able to change > the license and how much? > [...] > Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think > the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said. Whoever is chosen to "host" the licence. I don't believe this has been decided yet. > Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? > I don't know because I haven't seen the text. CC licences deal with this by saying that licensed works can only move forward to "a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License". The way to address this explicitly in ODbL would be to add similar text to 4.4.a.ii. There was, indeed, such text in there at one point - I can't remember why it was taken out. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651178.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
> That's a good summation of the reasoning for an evolving license.
I consider evolving licenses as evil blank cheques.
("i agree to this version of licence and any future version relased by
$FOUNDATION")
Even if there is preamble saying "all future versions will be in the same
faith like this" a lot of contributors will feel that they are forced to
trust somebody they do not know so far as beginners. This might be repelling.
Think about organisations that you ask for data and you show them a OSM-
license that says "license will change in the future without notice"
Then even a PD-release would be easier, because then everybody knows that
there is nothing more coming you can ask for.
-jha-
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Johann H. Addicks wrote: > I consider evolving licenses as evil blank cheques. They are a necessary evil. And a necessary blankness. > Even if there is preamble saying "all future versions will be in the same > faith like this" a lot of contributors will feel that they are forced to > trust somebody they do not know so far as beginners. This might be repelling. It hasn't repelled enough people to stop GNU or Wikipedia succeeding. > Think about organisations that you ask for data and you show them a OSM- > license that says "license will change in the future without notice" Think about organizations that show you no licence. > Then even a PD-release would be easier, because then everybody knows that > there is nothing more coming you can ask for. This solves the problem by causing it immediately. ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
