Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
I have updated the wiki 'brief' to reflect a number of issues raised in the past few days. 1) I have removed all references to 'public' in the brief and now ensure that Derived Database are distributed at least as widely as the end-user experience itself and that others are free to distribute it more widely. 2) I have added a clause to clarify that automatically processing the dataset into a new form not in itself constitute the creation of a derived DB and that the original DB can be used if preferred. 3) I have added clarification that the derived DB should be provided in a suitable form and by a suitable means to allow it to be use by a 'competent person'. I hope this captures the issues about having any derived DB usable without unduly restricting access to the contents by the form, structure of the data or means while available tying us into any current technology. 4) I have added a clause about providing a differential dataset together with access details for the main dataset. The licence page is available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for 'DSFG-compliance' Thanks, Peter > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst > Sent: 11 October 2008 00:18 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM > > Simon Ward wrote: > > > It shouldn't be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has > > already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests > > used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. > > Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be > published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before > complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points > under discussion. > > One of my objectives when I was working with Jordan, and other OSMF > members, on the licence was that it would be DSFG-compliant. Now we > may well have failed but at the moment this whole discussion is > bonkers hypothetical - people are levelling accusations at a licence > that they haven't even seen. > > I didn't submit myself for re-election to OSMF this year, so I can't > do what I'd like to and just post the licence right here, right now. > I have suggested that it be published and eagerly await OSMF doing > so. Maybe others would like to suggest the same. However - and with > the proviso there may be a host of little niggles of comparatively > little import - I do think it's a seriously good, well-considered > licence. > > I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876 > messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before. > > cheers > Richard > ___ > 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] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imagery for Public Domain Release
What you stated makes sense. It's probably better not to make waves. I've got some USDA imagery I can use instead, although the resolution isn't as good. The Sunburned Surveyor On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >> I wonder why release of data under the public domain might make Yahoo >> uneasy. It might actually make them less uneasy, since they could then >> do what they wanted with the data that was produced. > > My hunch is that they *might* just have overstepped (or at least: very > liberally interpreted) their own rights vis a vis the people they buy > their aerial imagery from. - Ed Parsons once said that Google had to pay > extra for "traceable" aerial imagery as the "normal" licenses would not > have been suitable for using the material in an application like > MapMaker. If none of us makes too much noise then we'll all get away > with it - the people from whom Yahoo license their imagery might well > know what we're doing but as long as it is limited to OSM they might not > care too much as they can still sell their premium "traceable" licenses > to other people. > > Just a hunch though, might be completely off. Mikel Maron is the guy who > had the talks with Yahoo so he's probably best suited to give you details. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > 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] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imagery for Public Domain Release
Hi, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > I wonder why release of data under the public domain might make Yahoo > uneasy. It might actually make them less uneasy, since they could then > do what they wanted with the data that was produced. My hunch is that they *might* just have overstepped (or at least: very liberally interpreted) their own rights vis a vis the people they buy their aerial imagery from. - Ed Parsons once said that Google had to pay extra for "traceable" aerial imagery as the "normal" licenses would not have been suitable for using the material in an application like MapMaker. If none of us makes too much noise then we'll all get away with it - the people from whom Yahoo license their imagery might well know what we're doing but as long as it is limited to OSM they might not care too much as they can still sell their premium "traceable" licenses to other people. Just a hunch though, might be completely off. Mikel Maron is the guy who had the talks with Yahoo so he's probably best suited to give you details. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Paid services from OSM
Hi, 80n wrote: > If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to > operate on exactly the same basis as the original project. On closer inspection, this will never be possible. If you fork OSM, under the old OR new license, you will not take the data from the individual contributors, but from OSM. So you will always have an attribution "stack" that goes "Cool New Database derived from OpenStreetMap derived from 60.000 people's contributions", whereas OSM's attribution stack is smaller by that one item. With the current share-alike license this is more of a problem for "Cool New Database" because a strict reading of the CC-BY-SA attribution requirements could force "Cool New Database" to include the OSM name next to its own on every derived product (e.g. Map) where it is suitable to the medium, whereas the proposed ODbL is likely to have relaxed attribution requirements for "integrated experiences". But still the "one extra level" difference remains and could only be removed by asking users to contribute directly to "Cool New Database". Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imagery for Public Domain Release
Thanks for the response Frederick. I wonder why release of data under the public domain might make Yahoo uneasy. It might actually make them less uneasy, since they could then do what they wanted with the data that was produced. Landon On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >> Could you map ways using JOSM and Yahoo aerial photography, export the >> ways for a data set released under the public domain, and then import >> into OSM? Or does the interpretation of the Yahoo Maps terms-of-use >> require the data created with the aerial imagery to be released only >> under the OSM license? > > I believe that there is no special OSM agreement with Yahoo. Rather, > Yahoo have carefully evaluated their existing terms of use and said to > us that what we want to do is ok according to these terms. > > Since I do not believe that these terms contain any provision about the > type of license you want to use derived data under, I guess it should be > possible to create any data that way. > > Then again, we wouldn't want Yahoo to get all scared and say "if that is > the case then we'd rather re-read our terms again..." > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > 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] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imagery for Public Domain Release
Hi, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > Could you map ways using JOSM and Yahoo aerial photography, export the > ways for a data set released under the public domain, and then import > into OSM? Or does the interpretation of the Yahoo Maps terms-of-use > require the data created with the aerial imagery to be released only > under the OSM license? I believe that there is no special OSM agreement with Yahoo. Rather, Yahoo have carefully evaluated their existing terms of use and said to us that what we want to do is ok according to these terms. Since I do not believe that these terms contain any provision about the type of license you want to use derived data under, I guess it should be possible to create any data that way. Then again, we wouldn't want Yahoo to get all scared and say "if that is the case then we'd rather re-read our terms again..." Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Paid services from OSM
Simon Ward wrote: > It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has > already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests > used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points under discussion. One of my objectives when I was working with Jordan, and other OSMF members, on the licence was that it would be DSFG-compliant. Now we may well have failed but at the moment this whole discussion is bonkers hypothetical - people are levelling accusations at a licence that they haven't even seen. I didn't submit myself for re-election to OSMF this year, so I can't do what I'd like to and just post the licence right here, right now. I have suggested that it be published and eagerly await OSMF doing so. Maybe others would like to suggest the same. However - and with the proviso there may be a host of little niggles of comparatively little import - I do think it's a seriously good, well-considered licence. I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876 messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:52:35PM +0100, Simon Ward wrote: > This is one reason why I find generally similar terms for the database > and its contents, rather than one rule for one, and a different rule for > the other, easier to comprehend and more acceptable. That is, you can > freely use the data, you can modify it, you can redistribute it > providing you give everyone else the same freedoms. I feel compelled to correct “everyone else” to “everyone you distribute your work to” just to avoid people picking up on that difference instead of the real point. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 08:38:56PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 80n wrote: > > There's no dispensation in the proposed license for a "Master" > > database. > > But there is a distinction between a "database" and "data". I always > thought that what I collect with my GPS is just "data", and only becomes > a "database" when combined with the work of others and arranged in a > common electronic format. This is one reason why I find generally similar terms for the database and its contents, rather than one rule for one, and a different rule for the other, easier to comprehend and more acceptable. That is, you can freely use the data, you can modify it, you can redistribute it providing you give everyone else the same freedoms. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:21:22PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like "within a reasonable > time frame" to alleviate the problem for people who try to process > "current" data. Either providing the data at the same time, or a written offer to provide it seems reasonable, and is what the GPL does for software[1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#section6 -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some > kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived > product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived > product accessible. Gah! If someone gives you a database of OSM data not in OSM’s original format, they have already provided it to you. The source[*] should be available so you are free to make your own modifications. ([*] I’m willing to allow that “source” could be a lossless and reversible translation of the original where both the translation and reverse processes are also freely available.) > I guess the easiest way would then be to leave this to the user: > *Either* make your derived product so accessible that someone can > somehow extract data from it, *or* ship the original OSM data from which > you made your derived product alongside the derived product - whatever > is easier for you. That’s not a problem with free software. Why is it a problem with free data? (Or it is seen as a problem, but only by those who don’t value others’ freedoms.) > ( ... this whole discussion is, once again, getting into the > negative, with us discussing all sorts of evil uses that have to be > safeguarded against by implementing measures that will be a burden to > everyone, evil or not evil.) Our freedoms are very important, they should be safeguarded. They’re only a burden if you try to restrict the freedom of other users. You may not see it that way, or value your freedom as much as I value everyone’s freedoms. If that’s the case there’s not much point in you discussing further, since it sounds like you are trying to protect some assumed right to remove the freedoms already given. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Dair Grant wrote: > Simon Ward wrote: > > > I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their > > source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. > ... > > The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere > > translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived > > database. > > If you're obligated to provide the source to your translation, providing > access to the translation itself seems pointless. Stop! I’m talking about someone who’s already providing a translation for whatever reason. They should provide the source to those they provide their work to as if it was a derived work. One reason for providing the translation in the first place is for convenience. Something that uses geodata expects a particular format that’s not OSM format, for example. > One difference between OSM usage and free software is that a great many uses > of OSM will be a one way process. Sure, it’s often a one way process, that’s why you would prefer the source be made available. > What's left might be useful for reconstructing OSM in an emergency, but the > planet dump that went into the process would be much more helpful. Which you may not have access to, and whoever distributed the derived DB to you should be obligated to provide. > If the data is just a translation from OSM (or some data literally derived > from it, like a precalculated routing table/simplified graph/etc) then > making that accessible is pointless. Only in the simple scenario that OSM will always be available to provide the source. You can’t guarantee that. The one way you can do that is to get the distributor to also distribute their source. You have contact with them, otherwise you wouldn’t have been able to get the derived work, and they can get you the source, otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to derive from it. > If that can't be done then, yes, those changes should be published in a form > that could be used by OSM. It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. You take the data. You distribute it (modified or not). There shouldn’t have to be a requirement to explicitly contribute back to OSM, but you should be obligated to provide the preferred form for modification and reuse (that is most likely the OSM format DB dump in OSM’s case). That way anybody who has access to your modified work gets the freedoms to examine, use, modify and redistribute it themselves. In many cases this would mean the work is available to be incorporated into OSM, but if the user is on the desert island, they still have freedoms given. The problem is primarily to do with having data people are free to use, and not necessarily getting contributions back into OSM itself. > I don't see that necessarily has to be via the translated database though. A > j.osm patch, or a modified planet file, would be easier to create and easier > to merge in (if they turned out to be something we wanted). They should be obligated to provide the source, not necessarily their own translated format. Again you’re concentrating on explicitly contributing back to OSM which would be very nice, but not always directly possible or helpful to reuse of the data. > If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source > planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation > that you couldn't do better with the planet dump? Use it with the tools only written to use the translated format? Of course, if we assumed these were free too (clearly a wrong assumption) then the problem may not exist. Lacking fully free software or fully free data, one or the other existing is better than nothing. > If the translation does improve the OSM data, but you get the source planet > dump plus the improvements as a .osm file, requiring the translation itself > be a public format seems excessive if the goal is to improve/protect OSM. My goal is free data. OSM is one way to achieve it, because that’s one of its aims (or I thought it was, am I wrong?), not the goal itself. The term “public” is being used far too much, and I think it should be avoided. I don’t require anything to be “public”, just that the people who receive the data get the same freedoms as those that they received it from. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like "within a reasonable > > time frame" to alleviate the problem for people who try to process > > "current" data. > > It only says "you must also _offer_ to recipients" (my emphasis), not > "you must provide in case anyone wants it" - it's like the GPL in > that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole > derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you update with > a minute diff; you could simply write "e-mail me here for a copy" and > supply it on demand. > And, of course, the same rules will also apply to the main OSM database, complete with history (but not user details). How big is it now? > > cheers > Richard > > ___ > 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] Paid services from OSM
Frederik Ramm wrote: > 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like "within a reasonable > time frame" to alleviate the problem for people who try to process > "current" data. It only says "you must also _offer_ to recipients" (my emphasis), not "you must provide in case anyone wants it" - it's like the GPL in that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you update with a minute diff; you could simply write "e-mail me here for a copy" and supply it on demand. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi,
On 10.10.2008, at 13:23, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[what the current ODL draft says]
> It looks pretty unambiguous to me that the PostGIS version _would_
> be classed as a derivative database ("includes modifying the
> Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different
> mode or format") and therefore must be made available.
So we should
1. find out if this is what we want,
and
2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like "within a reasonable
time frame" to alleviate the problem for people who try to process
"current" data.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Paid services from OSM
Mikel Maron wrote:
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Simon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available.
If this were about code, the belief would be that every time
someone compiled that code into running software, that binary would
need to be freely available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for
software. But you would have this for data?
If the ODL is unclear on this point (I'm not sure) than it should
be clarified.
"Derivative Database" – Any translation, adaptation, arrangement, or
any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
Data. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-
utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Data in a new Database.
[...]
"Use" – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by
Database Rights or copyright and neighbouring rights whether in the
original medium or any other; and includes modifying the Database as
may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format.
[...]
4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You publicly Use a Derivative
Database You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database
a copy in a machine readable form of:
a. The entire Derivative Database; or
b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database
offered under this Licence,
including any additional Data, that make up all the differences
between the Database and the Derivative Database.
The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must
be available at no more than a reasonable production cost for
physical distributions and free of charge if distributed over the
internet.
[end quote]
It looks pretty unambiguous to me that the PostGIS version _would_ be
classed as a derivative database ("includes modifying the Database as
may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or
format") and therefore must be made available.
cheers
Richard___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, > If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source > planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation > that you couldn't do better with the planet dump? I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived product accessible. I guess the easiest way would then be to leave this to the user: *Either* make your derived product so accessible that someone can somehow extract data from it, *or* ship the original OSM data from which you made your derived product alongside the derived product - whatever is easier for you. (Still an unnecessary complication in my eyes as I could easily construct scenarios where this would force someone to produce and ship an extra DVD... this whole discussion is, once again, getting into the negative, with us discussing all sorts of evil uses that have to be safeguarded against by implementing measures that will be a burden to everyone, evil or not evil.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Paid services from OSM
Simon Ward wrote: > I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their > source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. ... > The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere > translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived > database. If you're obligated to provide the source to your translation, providing access to the translation itself seems pointless. One difference between OSM usage and free software is that a great many uses of OSM will be a one way process. Tags will be discard or translated from the OSM model to a simpler model, IDs might be lost, coordinates might be truncated, etc. What's left might be useful for reconstructing OSM in an emergency, but the planet dump that went into the process would be much more helpful. If the data is just a translation from OSM (or some data literally derived from it, like a precalculated routing table/simplified graph/etc) then making that accessible is pointless. If the data is augmented or modified in a significant way then by far the best way (for everyone: OSM as a whole, and the translator) to pick up those changes would be to simply insert them into OSM and pick them up downstream. If that can't be done then, yes, those changes should be published in a form that could be used by OSM. I don't see that necessarily has to be via the translated database though. A .osm patch, or a modified planet file, would be easier to create and easier to merge in (if they turned out to be something we wanted). I believe the goal should be to pick up changes that improve OSM, rather than to use OSM as a lever to force open other file formats. If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation that you couldn't do better with the planet dump? If the translation does improve the OSM data, but you get the source planet dump plus the improvements as a .osm file, requiring the translation itself be a public format seems excessive if the goal is to improve/protect OSM. -dair ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:16:16AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > let's try to sort this out, I think I still not get your point fully. > > Simon Ward wrote: > > I’m about creating a world map that’s free for the world and remains > > free for the world. > > I'll recap the typical concept behind that: If our database were PD then > it would be free but it would not be sure to *remain* free because it > could be incorporated into something proprietary which is much better > than us, people would flock to the proprietary thing and OSM would be > dead. Right? > Google Map Maker being a good example: If we were PD, they could just > load all our stuff to have a nice basis and then simply outrun us in > terms of marketing, numbers of users, and so on. This sounds like a classic PD/all-permissive vs copyleft retort and I’m going to keep my answer to the above minimal. It’s not about popularity, market share, whatever. It’s not about commercial use or whatever other terms you might want to bring up. It’s about freedom, and making sure all users of derived works get the same freedoms. > So if we allow the extraction of non-substantial amounts of data without > a share-alike license, e.g. we allow the OS to take five post boxes and > put them on a Land Ranger map without requesting the Land Ranger map to > fall under our license They could take those five post boxes and put them on an interactive map which adds extra information (that we may or may not want back in OSM, it doesn’t matter) such as collection times, postal codes, sorting office… I’d like _that_ to be free, not necessarily their whole map too for that non‐substantial amount. I’m willing to consider that it’s unreasonable to expect that, but if I can make it free I will. > So anything you contribute to OSM is free and will remain free, even if > others can also use it in a non-free context. This requires that OSM stays (until it doesn’t matter because all data is considered to be free), and I certainly hope it does, but that won’t necessarily be the case. If OS have those five post boxes after OSM sources spontaneously combusted (clearly unlikely, but who knows?), I’d like them, please. > So what you're saying is basically: > > 1. You want full share-alike on every tiniest bit of information, > claiming that you (or the contributor) has intellectual property rights > to every bit. [*] Yes. If someone can get the right to keep data proprietary, I want the right to make it free. I’d much rather these “intellectual property” rights (bad term[1]) become more reasonable (erring towards freedom rather than restriction, shorter restrictive terms). [1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty > 2. You waive this share-alike provision for derived works if the > underlying database is shared (the T-Shirt designer can own his design > if he shares the underlying database, or if he has used OSM data > unaltered anyway). Yes (and the t-shirt designer _always_ owns his design, derived or not, he may just be bound by the terms of the licence of the data derived from as to how he distributes it). > In my eyes a lot of the elegance of the proposed new license lies in the > acknowledgment that facts are free anyway. To me, the existing license > has something un-ethical about it in claiming to have intellectual > property where none may exist. I believe facts should be free, and the rights are exercised where they exist to restrict (see [*] above). > I have written about that on this list about 1.5 years ago, and I still > find the "Science Commons" quote in that article valid: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-April/000302.html > > You are now going down the very same road again: Let's just *claim* we > have intellectial property of every tiniest bit of information, and if > someone believes otherwise let them challenge us. "Our preference is that people do not overstate their copyright or other legal rights. Consequently, we adopt the position that "facts are free" and people should be educated so that they are aware of this." Unfortunately, as much as I’d like facts to be free, not everyone else believes that. While people have the right to restrict, I’d like the right to free, see [*]. I’m repeating myself now, I better go… :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
