Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:47:47 +0200, Erik Johansson wrote: > > If ODBL existed in the same variants as CC does, this would be easier. I support CC very strongly, but I don't recommend licence variants. They make things even more confusing and incompatible. OSM can be viewed as layers. There's the points, the ways/routes/paths, and the rendered maps. This moves from data to design. ODbL covers the lower, BY-SA can cover the higher. The middle I don't like to think about. ;-) Data *may* be copyrightable in the US (it depends who you ask), we have the DB right in the EU, and there are examples of contract law being used to restrict use of geodata. So users of data are in their wild and natural state not always unrestricted. The question is whether these restrictions are bad enough to require the (sledge)hammer of a copyleft or share-alike-style system. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:37:24 +0300, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > > It also deters unexpected well-meaning users. Consider FlightGear, > the open-source flight simulator. Wouldn't it be great if they used > OSM instead of, or along with, VMAP0 for their scenery display? > Currently the technology is there, but they are reluctant to do that > because of the licence incompatibility, or more precisely doubts about > licence compatibility: Data isn't code. OpenOffice doesn't force you to licence everything you write under the GPL, and the free versions of Quake can load proprietary game files without there being a legal problem. So FlightFear's reluctance doesn't have a sound basis. > 2. Do the projects that use non-viral BSD, MIT, MPL-like licences any > worse off than GPL projects? Apache? Mozilla? X.org? Python uses a > non-viral licence. It has several forks and reimplementations > (IronPython, Jython, Stackless, unladen-swallow), which were funded by > different companies at different times. There is a commercial package > by ActiveState, but it's not making the whole community weaker, on the > contrary. It's not about the project or the community, it's about the individual users. If ActiveState's users aren't free to use the software, the health of "the community" is a distraction from the lack of freedom of individuals. > Viral licences have their uses (e.g. forcing wireless router > manufacturers to release the firmware contents, forcing NeXT to > release ObjJ, forcing Bruno Haible to contribute CLISP to the GNU > project), but my feeling in the case of OSM they just cause > uncertainty and doubt about any serious use of the data, even by > open-source projects. If people won't research or ask about the problems and won't accept the answers there's not a lot that can be done. In the case of BY-SA, the issues that there are are well known and easily explained. The big one being that BY-SA don't apply to data or the database right. ;-) Flight simulators or startups are not the problem, and will not have a problem, unless they have been poorly advised elsewhere or they are trying to get around the licence for some reason that they are not stating. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:50:50AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > wrote: >> 2010/4/22 Dirk-Lüder Kreie >> >> > Am 22.04.2010 02:51, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: >> > No other data gatherer in the world has the manpower OSM has. Even if >> > our License was to be CC0 or PD, we still would have the best map data >> > around, simply because no one could really keep up with us. (Assuming, >> > of course, that the majority of future OSM Mappers would find that >> > license acceptable). >> > >> > >> I would like to say that the sharealike license is what builds trust for me. >> As a small contributor at least I know that I will be able to use the >> derived works. I really think that the sharealike clause is what builds the >> community, it is the glue that holds it together. > > It also deters unexpected well-meaning users. Consider FlightGear, > the open-source flight simulator. Wouldn't it be great if they used > OSM instead of, or along with, VMAP0 for their scenery display? > Currently the technology is there, but they are reluctant to do that > because of the licence incompatibility, or more precisely doubts about > licence compatibility: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-de...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21490.html I dont see the problem, it sounds like they are just not very interested. It would not be a problem to convert maps for usage. You could distribute them separately. > >> For a large player it would be possible to take the data, invest a lot of >> resources in making a private branch, and there would be no sharing back. >> Stuff like that would really destroy the community. > > I don't see this as a realistic scenario. The scenario is simple, someone takes the map of a city, and just branches from that and does not share back. It could be done by anyone with enough resources. > Google Maps have better coverage than OSM in many areas. Not it the areas we cover, in kosovo and albanian we building the best maps. We are getting data from all types of sources, from gis companies etc. >Does it stop you from using OSM and contributing to it? I dont understand. I am talking about people using my work, about my time spent on the project. > Would it change your attitude if Google used OSM to make their data set > better? If they make those derived works available it is find whoever uses the data. > >> Only with a sharealike are the small contributing parties the benefactors. >> >> PD CC0 is great for huge organizations to publish data for all to use, but >> CCSA is great for building communities. > > Personally, I would feel much better about contributing to an open, > unencumbered body of public knowledge, rather than a paranoid "they > are out to get us" share-alike community. paranoid? whatever. > >> I can only point out that the GCC compiler would not be what it is today >> without the sharealike clause, for that reason it has so many backends and >> frontends. Only after alot of fighting with apple/next in the old days did >> objective c get added into the gcc. >> http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/ObjC2_FAQ#Which_Compiler_Should_I_Use.3F >> >> ""The history of Objective-C in GCC is somewhat complicated. Originally, >> NeXT was forced to release the original Objective-C front end in order to >> comply with the GPL."" >> >> Without such a license there would be no Objective C, there are many other >> examples of contributions that are a result of sharealike. I can say that I >> have personally invested months of time into openstreetmap and would not >> have done so, or have gotten the data contributions without the sharealike >> license. >> >> What else would allow all these different companies to donate map data, if >> they knew that someone could just "run away with the ball"? > > 1. Software is a different field, an analogy is just that. Analogies > often have their flaws. > > 2. Do the projects that use non-viral BSD, MIT, MPL-like licences any > worse off than GPL projects? Apache? Mozilla? X.org? Python uses a > non-viral licence. It has several forks and reimplementations > (IronPython, Jython, Stackless, unladen-swallow), which were funded by > different companies at different times. There is a commercial package > by ActiveState, but it's not making the whole community weaker, on the > contrary. here are all types of projects and all types of licenses, each has their merits. But for the gcc, it is very clear that companies do not donate a compiler machine backend for free. For OSM, I chose to invest my time also because I see that the license protects my investment. It is pretty simple. > Viral licences have their uses (e.g. forcing wireless router > manufacturers to release the firmware contents, forcing NeXT to > release ObjJ, forcing Bruno Haible to contribute CLISP to the GNU > project), but my feeling in the case of OSM they just cause > uncertainty and doubt about any serious use of the
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
Hi, TimSC wrote: >> The share-alike element in data is stronger with ODbL than it was with >> CC-BY-SA. > I assume you mean it is "stronger" as in "enforceable"? Since CC-BY-SA is almost surely not applicable to a collection of facts like ours, it is not hard to make something that is more enforceable ;) > Perhaps I am > missing another area of strengthening. The intent of CC-BY-SA is all > derived works are also SA. Otherwise, it seems ODbL is weaker - produced > works are not share alike? Yes but we get something in return which is more valuable (if you define value in terms of how much something brings us closer to the stated goal of the project). My standard example is that of a guy who makes a T-Shirt with an OSM map of his town on it. Say he finds the data for the town insufficient, and spends a few days surveying the bits that are important for his T-Shirt. Under CC-BY-SA we have share-alike on the T-Shirt. This means everyone can buy the T-Shirt, put it under a scanner and hope to retrieve some meaningful data from it. (Plus people can simply upload the T-Shirt design to any T-Shirt making web site and undercut the original creator by one cent; a situation that reduces the likelihood that the T-Shirt will be made in the first place.) The improved data, however, need not be shared; since the improved data as such is never published, it does not fall under the CC-BY-SA share-alike clause. The data remains hidden to us; we only get a scanned T-Shirt. Under ODbL, we don't necessarily get the T-Shirt design. We consider the T-Shirt design to be the creator's intellectual property and grant him every right to restrict access to that. But what we do get is his improved data - because we say that this data is a derived work of ours, he has to share his improvements. Which is, in my eyes, a stronger request - we're not happy with people releasing some processed, filtered, compiled version of their data, we want the data itself. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
Frederik Ramm wrote: > >/ OSM is not essentially anything at its core. It is different things > to />/ different people. > / > I'm talking about the sentence that defines OSM at the top of our Wiki > page, which in all likelihood has been there in this form when most of > us signed up. > As if that that mission statement on the wiki is not open to revision? People may disagree with it, from within the project and try to change policies. We can see a parallel to political constitutions which tend to accumulate amendments. It is human nature to continue to rewrite and reinterpret values. Therefore, OSM is not essentially the mission statement or a "data project". What it is changes in time, as well as being different to different people. A more useful way of conceptualizing OSM, is to identify what we want to achieve and what steps we can take to achieve it. (My non-mapping hobby is philosophy. I am borrowing here from Karl Popper.) > >/ The fact that commercial data can't be merged with CC-BY-SA could > be />/ said to be a limitation of commerical data, rather than a > limitation of />/ CC-BY-SA. / > You're over-simplifying when you say "commercial data". Even GNU FDL > data cannot be merged with CC-BY-SA. Well obviously there are other licenses that are not compatible with CC-BY-SA, but my point holds, at least for NC licenses: they are also too restrictive and that is as much a problem with that incompatible license as with CC-BY-SA. It is perhaps ironic that most or all SA type licenses don't inter-operate, which I guess shows the limitation of implementing SA. > (a) all maps can be made, but sharing them is a the maker's discretion > > versus > > (b) only some maps can be made, but once they are made they will > always be shared > > I'd certainly find (a) to be more encouraging to creativity. > I tend to agree with your conclusion here, but my argument is driven as much by avoiding the legal complexity of (b), as creativity. I am actually pro-PD at this moment, despite my argument that ODbL is diverging from the intent of CC-BY-SA. > >/ Can't the same thing apply to maps? And if SA is too restrictive > for />/ produced works, why have SA at all? A watered down SA is the > worse of />/ all worlds IMHO, which is the ODbL. This has high > complexity with few SA />/ rights. > / > The share-alike element in data is stronger with ODbL than it was with > CC-BY-SA. I assume you mean it is "stronger" as in "enforceable"? Perhaps I am missing another area of strengthening. The intent of CC-BY-SA is all derived works are also SA. Otherwise, it seems ODbL is weaker - produced works are not share alike? I agree with thread comments that it is the community that makes OSM work, not the license (although it is a small factor in attracting them). And SA confuses various potential users, like the flight simulators, from using our data (arguably ODbL is watered down SA to make this less of a "problem"). I guess the big question is do we want to prioritize innovation of mapping or do we want to create maps that most people will use? Only to some extent can we do both. The decisions on licensing is driven by the answer to that question, IMHO. Tim ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:50:50AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > 2010/4/22 Dirk-Lüder Kreie > > > Am 22.04.2010 02:51, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: > > No other data gatherer in the world has the manpower OSM has. Even if > > our License was to be CC0 or PD, we still would have the best map data > > around, simply because no one could really keep up with us. (Assuming, > > of course, that the majority of future OSM Mappers would find that > > license acceptable). > > > > > I would like to say that the sharealike license is what builds trust for me. > As a small contributor at least I know that I will be able to use the > derived works. I really think that the sharealike clause is what builds the > community, it is the glue that holds it together. It also deters unexpected well-meaning users. Consider FlightGear, the open-source flight simulator. Wouldn't it be great if they used OSM instead of, or along with, VMAP0 for their scenery display? Currently the technology is there, but they are reluctant to do that because of the licence incompatibility, or more precisely doubts about licence compatibility: http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-de...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21490.html > For a large player it would be possible to take the data, invest a lot of > resources in making a private branch, and there would be no sharing back. > Stuff like that would really destroy the community. I don't see this as a realistic scenario. Google Maps have better coverage than OSM in many areas. Does it stop you from using OSM and contributing to it? Would it change your attitude if Google used OSM to make their data set better? > Only with a sharealike are the small contributing parties the benefactors. > > PD CC0 is great for huge organizations to publish data for all to use, but > CCSA is great for building communities. Personally, I would feel much better about contributing to an open, unencumbered body of public knowledge, rather than a paranoid "they are out to get us" share-alike community. > I can only point out that the GCC compiler would not be what it is today > without the sharealike clause, for that reason it has so many backends and > frontends. Only after alot of fighting with apple/next in the old days did > objective c get added into the gcc. > http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/ObjC2_FAQ#Which_Compiler_Should_I_Use.3F > > ""The history of Objective-C in GCC is somewhat complicated. Originally, > NeXT was forced to release the original Objective-C front end in order to > comply with the GPL."" > > Without such a license there would be no Objective C, there are many other > examples of contributions that are a result of sharealike. I can say that I > have personally invested months of time into openstreetmap and would not > have done so, or have gotten the data contributions without the sharealike > license. > > What else would allow all these different companies to donate map data, if > they knew that someone could just "run away with the ball"? 1. Software is a different field, an analogy is just that. Analogies often have their flaws. 2. Do the projects that use non-viral BSD, MIT, MPL-like licences any worse off than GPL projects? Apache? Mozilla? X.org? Python uses a non-viral licence. It has several forks and reimplementations (IronPython, Jython, Stackless, unladen-swallow), which were funded by different companies at different times. There is a commercial package by ActiveState, but it's not making the whole community weaker, on the contrary. Viral licences have their uses (e.g. forcing wireless router manufacturers to release the firmware contents, forcing NeXT to release ObjJ, forcing Bruno Haible to contribute CLISP to the GNU project), but my feeling in the case of OSM they just cause uncertainty and doubt about any serious use of the data, even by open-source projects. Albertas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
Erik, Erik Johansson wrote: > Obviously a lot of people think Openstreetmap is more than just a > collection of coordinates in a db. I think you try to redefine it in a > way that supports your PD argument. Firstly, I am not making a PD argument but an ODbL argument here. Secondly, I'm not redefining anything, just pointing out the existing definition. Thirdly, I'm slightly offended by your "I've yet to see an argument ... instead of just opinions just as yours". I guess if all I can say is "just an opinion" while what you say is a proper "argument" then maybe I'll just recommend that you re-read the previous 2 years of legal-talk. The idea of no restrictions on produced works in ODbL doesn't come out of nowhere. > If ODBL existed in the same variants as CC does, this would be easier. An equivalent to CC-BY is currently in the works over at OKFN. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
2010/4/22 Dirk-Lüder Kreie > Am 22.04.2010 02:51, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: > No other data gatherer in the world has the manpower OSM has. Even if > our License was to be CC0 or PD, we still would have the best map data > around, simply because no one could really keep up with us. (Assuming, > of course, that the majority of future OSM Mappers would find that > license acceptable). > > I would like to say that the sharealike license is what builds trust for me. As a small contributor at least I know that I will be able to use the derived works. I really think that the sharealike clause is what builds the community, it is the glue that holds it together. For a large player it would be possible to take the data, invest a lot of resources in making a private branch, and there would be no sharing back. Stuff like that would really destroy the community. Only with a sharealike are the small contributing parties the benefactors. PD CC0 is great for huge organizations to publish data for all to use, but CCSA is great for building communities. I can only point out that the GCC compiler would not be what it is today without the sharealike clause, for that reason it has so many backends and frontends. Only after alot of fighting with apple/next in the old days did objective c get added into the gcc. http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/ObjC2_FAQ#Which_Compiler_Should_I_Use.3F ""The history of Objective-C in GCC is somewhat complicated. Originally, NeXT was forced to release the original Objective-C front end in order to comply with the GPL."" Without such a license there would be no Objective C, there are many other examples of contributions that are a result of sharealike. I can say that I have personally invested months of time into openstreetmap and would not have done so, or have gotten the data contributions without the sharealike license. What else would allow all these different companies to donate map data, if they knew that someone could just "run away with the ball"? mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Tim, > >> OSM is not essentially anything at its core. It is different things to >> different people. > > I'm talking about the sentence that defines OSM at the top of our Wiki > page, which in all likelihood has been there in this form when most of > us signed up. > > If you sign up to a project which claims to be A but to you the project > is B, Obviously a lot of people think Openstreetmap is more than just a collection of coordinates in a db. I think you try to redefine it in a way that supports your PD argument. Lets just agree to disagree, I interpret the message on the wiki to be about allowing you to use maps in anyway you want. I've yet to see an argument, against SA on the produced works, instead of just opinions such as yours, the only one that exists is "PD is easier". If ODBL existed in the same variants as CC does, this would be easier. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
Am 22.04.2010 02:51, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: > Yeah, but it's a chicken and egg problem. You choose (a), someone > makes a super complete map under a license which means we can't use it > as a source for adding more data, and you get "Only some maps can be > made" because there isn't enough data, OSM isn't useful. You choose > (b) and everyone is forced to share their data and you can say "more > (all) maps can be made", there are more sources people can use. No other data gatherer in the world has the manpower OSM has. Even if our License was to be CC0 or PD, we still would have the best map data around, simply because no one could really keep up with us. (Assuming, of course, that the majority of future OSM Mappers would find that license acceptable). -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
