Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime
Frederik Ramm wrote: >Sent: 07 February 2008 9:22 AM >To: Licensing and other legal discussions. >Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new >dataLicence regime > >Hi, > >> There are negative sides to a copyright assignment. A) We probably >> wouldn't get one from e.g. AND or MASSGIS (although I'm speculating). B) >> It would mean the scenario I mentioned to Frederik, where a commercial >> company could sue a license violator, couldn't happen, because they >> would no longer be the copyright holder. > >C) the foundation would become hugely more important, and with that the >decision-making processes inside the Foundation and so on would suddenly >be under much more scrutiny than they are now, and we'd be spending 90% >of our time squabbling over how a certain vote might have ended >differently if only this and that. Not good. I like the Foundation to be >as unimportant as possible. > Agreed, the OSMF should only be the guiding light in these matters. Cheers Andy >Bye >Frederik > >___ >legal-talk mailing list >legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: >We need a situation where someone can say "Yes" when an enquiry >comes in, not "hire a lawyer to look at license XYZ". Otherwise the >data is useless for many purposes that everyone would agree it >should be allowed for. Unless you go for an unrestricted model like PD, anyone using OSM data commercially is going have to have a lawyer look at the licence (at which point it's the licence text that counts, not who owns the copyright on individual bits of data). Having said that, it'd be useful to have some guidelines on example usage from the OSMF - like the human-readable summary you get with a CC licence. The share-alike aspect is always the bit that causes confusion, so a summary of how that interacts with common situations like a web-page, a printed map, combining with proprietary data, transcoding to another format, giving credit, etc. -dair ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime
Hi, > There are negative sides to a copyright assignment. A) We probably > wouldn't get one from e.g. AND or MASSGIS (although I'm speculating). B) > It would mean the scenario I mentioned to Frederik, where a commercial > company could sue a license violator, couldn't happen, because they > would no longer be the copyright holder. C) the foundation would become hugely more important, and with that the decision-making processes inside the Foundation and so on would suddenly be under much more scrutiny than they are now, and we'd be spending 90% of our time squabbling over how a certain vote might have ended differently if only this and that. Not good. I like the Foundation to be as unimportant as possible. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > It's been proposed by me several times in the past. I think it's > essential. I don't know of a similar major project that doesn't do some > kind of assignment. Wikipedia is the nearest, but Wikipedia is a > collection of articles that all stand on their own. Can you name some which do? > We need a situation where someone can say "Yes" when an enquiry comes > in, not "hire a lawyer to look at license XYZ". Otherwise the data is > useless for many purposes that everyone would agree it should be allowed > for. But surely a license is a codification of "what everyone agrees it should be allowed for"? > For example, a while ago, ITN news needed a map of Baghdad. No one could > say for sure how much of the TV buletin they would have to release > CC-by-sa in order to allow them to do that. Looking back at that now, > probably "only" the final ITN styled bitmap image that is shown on the > screen, but the designers of ITN's style guidelines probably haven't > licensed ITN to release them. > > If the foundation owned the data, they could say to ITN "just show a > logo and www.openstreetmap.org in the corner at some point", and > everyone would be happy. As I understand it, the new licence solves this problem. > Another example: it would be great if an npemap type system could be > used with OSM maps to derive a free postcode database, but license > incompatibilities make that impossible. This is insane. (Define "free".) You may think so. Other contributors may think it's entirely reasonable for postcode data calculated using OSM to be BY-SA rather than PD. > Obviously if > that went to any kind of vote, the foundation would allow that, but they > don't currently have the power to allow it. It would certainly be interesting to look at whether the licence change would have any effect on the postcode problem. > Yes, maybe you can come up with a license that would unambiguously allow > the above two uses, but there will be cases where it will be in OSM's > interests to bend the rules, and we must provide a mechanism that allows > this. There are negative sides to a copyright assignment. A) We probably wouldn't get one from e.g. AND or MASSGIS (although I'm speculating). B) It would mean the scenario I mentioned to Frederik, where a commercial company could sue a license violator, couldn't happen, because they would no longer be the copyright holder. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
