Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
Joseph Gentle wrote: > The license is changing > frustration is waning > we can all see > what the new license will be > Some terms need explaining There once was a lawyer from Texas who tackled the issues that vex us CC is contrived when defining "derived" So let's switch before arguing wrecks us Am I the only one who sees the subject line and thinks of Badger Badger Badger? cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 01:13:40PM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: > The license is changing > frustration is waning > we can all see > what the new license will be > Some terms need explaining Brightened my morning up, that did. :D 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] [Spam] Re: License License License
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Gentle > Sent: 13 October 2008 03:14 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License > > The license is changing > frustration is waning > we can all see > what the new license will be > Some terms need explaining Thanks, a great response :) Peter > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > SteveC wrote: > >> Subject: License License License > > > > Can we hear that as a limerick? ;-) > > > > 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm > Sent: 13 October 2008 00:14 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License > > Hi, > > Peter Miller wrote: > > Mike uploaded the draft licence to the foundation website yesterday > > http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/the-openstreetmap-license/ > > Good. I will translate this into German to generate some interest on > talk-de. I'm not exactly looking forward to having to act as the first > port of call for anyone who doesn't like something but I can always say > it is THEIR fault. > No, please don't do that yet! To be clear this is an old draft licence which of course does not take into account any of the changes that we have discussed in the past few days, or indeed for the past months. I understand from Steve that the Brief and Use Cases we have been drafting will be used as part of the input to this process (with no promises about if the points can be included though) so let's concentrate on getting these right first. If you translate anything into German then can you translate the Brief that we have been talking about on this list? FYI, I have made some changes to the Brief in the past 24 hours to reflect various comments and have also numbered the paragraphs. Check the main ones out here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Open_Data_License&diff=164485&; oldid=164154 In particular I have: 1) Clarified the difference between automatic processing of the Dataset (which is not a Derivate Database) and adding additional information (which does). 2) I have introduced the concept of a 'competent person' in the definition of how any Derivative Database should be distributed to help define what is a suitable format and what is not. 3) Added more words on Collective Databases. 4) Clarified the differential database option. The main issue I personally still have with the current draft of the brief is around Collective Datasets (which may contain the whole of OSM dataset or a very large part of it together with random other stuff). Personally I think the logic of what we want to achieve is that any Collective Dataset that is to be released must be released under this licence (or similar licence). If not then we don't have control over any subsequent changes to the OSM part of the content. It is not however a requirement to release the Collective Dataset at all (which may be impossible if it contains other data on incompatible licence such as full copyright). Regards, Peter > I think there are some points arising from the last days of discussion > that are not (yet) covered by the license (most importantly the lack of > distinction between public and restricted distribution and also the > question of what happens if you take a substantial extract but make an > insubstantial change e.g. osm2pgsql) but I will first focus on the > smaller details that spring to (my) mind on reading this draft. (Bear in > mind I'm not a native speaker so might interpret some things differently.) > > 1.0 Capitalised words > > This defines "Extraction" and "Re-Utilisation" as terms that only apply > to a "all or a Substantial part of the data", rendering all later > occurrences of the term "Extraction of all or a Substantial part..." > useless and making "Extraction of Re-Utilisation of insubstantial parts" > (as discussed e.g. in the paragraphs on "Substantial") impossible. - The > word "Substantial" must be dropped from the definition of "Extraction" > and "Re-Utilisation" to make sense. > > 2.2 b Database Rights > > "Database rights can also apply when the Data is removed from the > Database and is selected..." - "removing data from a database" to me > means deletion and this makes the sentence funny. Should this perhaps > read "Data is extracted..."? > > 2.3 Rights not covered > > This says that the license does not cover patents or trademarks. Which > is good because otherwise it would be much longer. However, to avoid > misunderstandings, I think that the specific OSM license we will later > use should have some extra text saying that by uploading to OSM you say > that you are not aware of any patent applying to what you're uploading. > Otherwise someone could maliciously upload a complex construct that > somehow falls under a patent and "poison" our database with it - or am I > too cautious here? > > 3.1 Grant of rights > > "... for the duration of any applicable Copyright and Database rights". > In many other places in the license, care is taken to always talk of > "Copyright and neighouring rights, and Database right". Why the omission > of the "neighbouring" here - purpose? Plus, I'd like an annotation here > that says: "The license only extends for the duration of the applicable > rights because after that the data base can be used without a license > anyway" - which is obvious, legally, but might not
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
The license is changing frustration is waning we can all see what the new license will be Some terms need explaining On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > SteveC wrote: >> Subject: License License License > > Can we hear that as a limerick? ;-) > > 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] License License License
Hi, SteveC wrote: > Subject: License License License Can we hear that as a limerick? ;-) 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] License License License
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> Mike uploaded the draft licence to the foundation website yesterday
> http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/the-openstreetmap-license/
Good. I will translate this into German to generate some interest on
talk-de. I'm not exactly looking forward to having to act as the first
port of call for anyone who doesn't like something but I can always say
it is THEIR fault.
I think there are some points arising from the last days of discussion
that are not (yet) covered by the license (most importantly the lack of
distinction between public and restricted distribution and also the
question of what happens if you take a substantial extract but make an
insubstantial change e.g. osm2pgsql) but I will first focus on the
smaller details that spring to (my) mind on reading this draft. (Bear in
mind I'm not a native speaker so might interpret some things differently.)
1.0 Capitalised words
This defines "Extraction" and "Re-Utilisation" as terms that only apply
to a "all or a Substantial part of the data", rendering all later
occurrences of the term "Extraction of all or a Substantial part..."
useless and making "Extraction of Re-Utilisation of insubstantial parts"
(as discussed e.g. in the paragraphs on "Substantial") impossible. - The
word "Substantial" must be dropped from the definition of "Extraction"
and "Re-Utilisation" to make sense.
2.2 b Database Rights
"Database rights can also apply when the Data is removed from the
Database and is selected..." - "removing data from a database" to me
means deletion and this makes the sentence funny. Should this perhaps
read "Data is extracted..."?
2.3 Rights not covered
This says that the license does not cover patents or trademarks. Which
is good because otherwise it would be much longer. However, to avoid
misunderstandings, I think that the specific OSM license we will later
use should have some extra text saying that by uploading to OSM you say
that you are not aware of any patent applying to what you're uploading.
Otherwise someone could maliciously upload a complex construct that
somehow falls under a patent and "poison" our database with it - or am I
too cautious here?
3.1 Grant of rights
"... for the duration of any applicable Copyright and Database rights".
In many other places in the license, care is taken to always talk of
"Copyright and neighouring rights, and Database right". Why the omission
of the "neighbouring" here - purpose? Plus, I'd like an annotation here
that says: "The license only extends for the duration of the applicable
rights because after that the data base can be used without a license
anyway" - which is obvious, legally, but might not be obvious to anyone
reading this ("huh, do I have to stop using the data after Copyright has
expired?").
4.2 Notices
"You must, if you publicly Use ... this Database, any Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database..." - this
monster shows up elsewhere as well (e.g. top of p5, or in 4.3). I fail
to understand why this is necessary. If I create a Derivative Database
or include this database in a Collective Database, then the license is
automatically inherited by the Derivative Database or the "part of" the
Collective Database. So it should suffice to say "if you publicly Use
... this Database", because for the Derived Database there will be a new
"instance" of the license for which "this" is the Derived Database. Or
is this applying too much programming logic to legal things?
4.2 b "Keep intact any copyright or Database right notices..." - this is
the attribution chain, correct? Could it perhaps then read "4.2 b
Attribution: Keep intact..." to make this clearer to people who know
existing licenses?
4.3 and 4.5 b, "mash-ups". "integrated expericences". What is the
difference between 4.3 and 4.5 b? Is 4.5 b just a re-iteration of 4.3?
Both sections talk of producing a "Substantial" extract (and explictily
omit the "all data or a Substantial extract" wording found elsewhere),
and both talk of combining this extract with information from one or
more sources to form an "integrated experience".
What if I take the planet file, print it onto A4 sheets of paper and
plaster it somewhere as an art installation? I have used ALL data (not
only a "Substantial part", unless the term "Substantial part" is meant
to apply to all data as well in which case all occurrences of "all Data
or a Substantial part" in the document should be changed!), and I have
not combined it with anything from another source - but I have still
created an integrated experience, haven't I?
Why the wording "... (via a search or query)" - who cares *how* I have
extracted data? If I randomly extract 1000 records, do these sections
then not apply?
The whole "integrated experience" thing *needs* to be clarified with
examples if the license is to be understood by anyone. Since the example
with a database containing images has been used else
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-newbies] Sending letter asking my local authority, my first time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote: > Hello, > > I have a map which the technical service of my local authority gave me > when I visited their building and asked for a map, showing the > geographical boundaries of this authority. > > I now have a letter ready to be sent to them. Since it is in the Greek > language I've translated it to English, and made it a bit more general, > so it could point to any local > authority. I've searched in the wiki a bit in the past for a map use > request to a local authority, but just found such information scattered > around. Anyway, here is the letter: > > > Map of Municipality of Sykies > > To: Technical Service of the Municipality of Sykies – Department of city > planning & Cadastre > Address: Lechovou 4 > Postal Address: 566 26 > > Hello, > > I'm interested in using information that exists on the map and use it > (either as is or with changes) in a database of the organisation > openstreetmap. The geographical information that exist in this database > is licensed under Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported [1]. > > Openstreetmap is an organisation which tries to create a free map where > volunteers help out with geographical information, from many places of > the world. > If it's not possible, may I have your permission to use the information > of the map of the municipality of Sykies and add them to the database of > openstreetmap? > > I'm waiting for your reply > > My name > My address and postcode > My regular phone > My cell/mobile number > My email > Notes: > [1] : Brief information on the webpage > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.el > While your link is correct, the name of the license is not. OSM uses the 2.0 BY-SA license, whose full name is "Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic". > If you have any suggestions on changes, or know of a place in the wiki > where something like a template for such a letter can be found I would > be happy. I have added the legal-talk list to this thread. This sort of thing is probably best discussed there instead of the newbies list. Denver http://ossguy.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFI8mELq02IUA/pi34RAglEAJ9Ei/NTvHSvCJZlOkfbdX+6GL6g+gCggTNL PpmY30DWHebCEQMflZWWBXM= =WueD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward > Sent: 12 October 2008 20:39 > To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:06:55PM -0700, SteveC wrote: > > First order - the current draft and why isn't it up on the website? > > Mike Collinson has been ill. That's it. No conspiracy. As soon as he's > > well (which I believe he almost is) you'll see it. > > Ah, I did check, and requested a copy today. Glad to hear it will be > available for all to see shortly. Yay! > Mike uploaded the draft licence to the foundation website yesterday http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/the-openstreetmap-license/ Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:06:55PM -0700, SteveC wrote: > First order - the current draft and why isn't it up on the website? > Mike Collinson has been ill. That's it. No conspiracy. As soon as he's > well (which I believe he almost is) you'll see it. Ah, I did check, and requested a copy today. Glad to hear it will be available for all to see shortly. Yay! 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] License License License
SteveC wrote: > [lots of good stuff] Really good news, great to hear it. :) cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License License License
Wow the volume's picked up here then huh? It's great to see so many people interested. First order - the current draft and why isn't it up on the website? Mike Collinson has been ill. That's it. No conspiracy. As soon as he's well (which I believe he almost is) you'll see it. That draft was something the OSMF engaged a large legal firm pro-bono to look at. There were some issues they had but they were mostly minor. Unfortunately the particular people we were dealing with became very busy and despite repeated attempts we've been unable to get in contact with them. Last week I met with a new legal firm and we've been cleared via their pro-bono process to be given legal time to work on the license. They're sending an engagement letter now and when I have that signed you'll all know who the firm is. Because of conflict of interest I can't talk to them about CloudMade stuff (not that I would anyway) and they can't talk to CM about the license with the same people who are helping us. This is normal conflict protection stuff and I went through it all with the previous firm. I'm quite positive about this firm as they seem genuinely interested in helping out and looking at a permissive license rather than the bread and butter restrictive licenses that they're paid for. That's my take on it anyway. The next step after that is for them to review the license with general comments, and against use cases. So once we've engaged them I will ask them to review the use cases on the wiki. When they've done that I'll get their responses and report back here on the outcome. If you have better ideas for what to do please air them here. The use cases are great but I think that if you accept this license won't be 110% perfect, and that we can have later licenses that inherit (ODbL 2.0 or whatever) then the bigger thing to think about is the home for this thing, a body to nurture it and so on. My lack of time on the lists recently makes me sad and I'm trying to catch up with all the posts. Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imageryfor Public Domain Release
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I am very sure it is not allowed. If it was allowed then Ed would have made > that clear on any number of occasions recently, notably at SOTM and at > FOSS. > I have never met Ed, so I will have to do with reading their licenses. It is not obvious to me, to what extent the various Google licenses limits use of traces in OSM. The Google Maps Terms of Service, says "You may not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate, modify or make derivative works of the imagery, in whole or in part." If a trace is a derived work, then you are not allowed to make traces, but I am not sure if that would be aderived work. The Google Maps API Terms of Service, says " You may use the API to display the Content in conjunction with other information You provide to end users. You may not access, reproduce, or use the Content for any other purpose." Would background in an editor fall within such usage? I don't know, but they showcase examples where the API is used for drawing polygons. The Google Earth License is a bit different, since it is really a license for a piece of software, more than Terms of Service for a web service. I have not found anything in the license, restricting the usage of traces you make with the Google Earth trace tool... Regards, Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Tim Waters (chippy) wrote: > On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that >> perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several >> months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new >> licence published - a lot of this has already been addressed, and >> thus it's ultimately wasted effort which could productively be spent >> on finding the failings with the _current_ draft. > > So do we have the new licence? Do we have the current draft? > > Where has this been addressed? What has been the results? > > How is what we are talking about "wasted effort"? > > Are you saying we shouldn't discuss things until we see the current > licence? > Isn't this what was happening before this discussion started? People > saying "oh, who knows! It's all up in the air!" > > Do we, as a community, by discussing these things, have no influence > on the direction of the future of OSM? > > Has everything been decided already by the OSMF? Goodness me, that's an enormously confrontational-sounding posting, and, er, utterly wrong to boot. I thought I'd made it clear, but in nice bullet points (remembering that I am no longer on OSMF, because I didn't have the time it merited, and I didn't want to continue slowing down the fine bunch of people who are on it): * I would like OSMF to publish the current licence * I say 'wasted effort' only because I know things are being agonised over which _have_ already been sorted (by Steve, Andy and me when working with Jordan last year) * This is why I would like OSMF to publish the licence, so that people can apply their minds to the things that still need sorting, not to the things that have already been sorted * I am not saying "you shouldn't discuss things", or "we as a community have no influence", or anyt of that, I am saying OSMF should publish the licence * IMHO OSMF should publish the licence cheers Richard P.S. did I mention something about publishing the licence? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simon Ward wrote: > > > _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on > > what > > to look out for when the licence is released. > > > Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that > perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several > months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new > licence published - a lot of this has already been addressed, and > thus it's ultimately wasted effort which could productively be spent > on finding the failings with the _current_ draft. So do we have the new licence? Do we have the current draft? Where has this been addressed? What has been the results? How is what we are talking about "wasted effort"? Are you saying we shouldn't discuss things until we see the current licence? Isn't this what was happening before this discussion started? People saying "oh, who knows! It's all up in the air!" Do we, as a community, by discussing these things, have no influence on the direction of the future of OSM? Has everything been decided already by the OSMF? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
