date:20100716

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote:
> The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
> is to fork it.

How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can
fork it?  That works too.

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 Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 07:40:09AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 01:15, Gervase Markham  wrote:
> > OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your
> > limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other
> > contributors do too. We now have a big pile of limits.
> 
> I've also come to the conclusion that it's pointless to make an
> informed decision, what I want to see is the amount of data that will
> be lost, and then be asked if I agree with the change over or not.

Right, we haven’t got there yet.

The license change hasn’t really happened yet.  Only new contributors
will have their data dual licensed, and the existing contributors
haven’t seen the question yet.

Until we get the response from that, we don’t know how much data we will
“lose”[1], and that makes it a little difficult to provide the amount of
data lost to help contributors decide whether to agree.  Can’t you see
the catch‐22 here?

Please, just disagree or agree to the license and contributor terms on
principal.

Let me put this in a different context: OSMFCorp wants to relicense your
data under a non‐free, commercial license so they can make their board
of directors lots of money from license fees.  Say you’re not on the
board, you’re not even a member.  Would you agree to this just because
more than X% have already agreed?

[1] It’s not really lost, just not included in the project under the new
license.

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 Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more
> than obvious I'm bucking the trend...

Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so
vocal… ;)

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 Cut-over and critical mass

On 16 July 2010 17:56, Simon Ward  wrote:
> Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so
> vocal… ;)

Sure, I'm not a sheeple blindly going toward the light because I'm
told it's the one true way, and I'm doing something so I'm not
apathetic, so that just leaves me in the third group...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair.  Exactly 100% of all
> contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
> willing to contribute their data under that license.

Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different
license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous,
especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL
without any mass hysteria.

> That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA.  Where's the mandate for ODbL?  After
> more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a clue how
> much support there is.

"They" do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of
contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to
say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a
time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I
expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing
to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing,
since that works in your favour too.

After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's
pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the
fundamental problems with it, and have little interest in any other
option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how
many people want ODbL.

Cheers,
Andy

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/15/2010 11:39 PM, John Smith wrote:

On 16 July 2010 08:32, Rob Myers  wrote:

If we are allowed to arbitrarily redefine how votes should be counted then,
as I say, only 6.05% of the total possible electorate voted against
relicencing.


48% for, 6% against, no clear majority...


The largest single voting category is clearly the "for" vote.

And within the cast votes the result is even clearer.


The informal poll indicates that for the most part they are not.


This is like Fox taking a poll about how people voted and then
declaring a winner rather than actually waiting for votes to be
counted, it's meaningless for the most part and further more the poll
used doesn't link to actual accounts so there is nothing stopping
people from gaming the system.


There isn't, but the OSM community aren't 4chan.


I am not opposed to giving the contributors a vote. They can vote with their
data. That is the only practical and effective way for the community to


That isn't a vote, and it's confusing 2 issues in one,
agreeing/disagreeing with a license and voting for/against a change
over if the amount of data lost is unacceptable.


People will not vote to change over if they disagree with the change-over.


express their will, and the OSMF vote that we are discussing enabled it to
take place.

Giving the community a ballot vote would first be voted on by the OSMF. Then
even if the community did vote to relicence, the voluntary relicencing
system would still have to be used because OSMF cannot relicence the project
as a whole like Wikimedia did.


I'm aware of that, that isn't my point, my point is I want to make an
informed decision on how much data will be lost if we relicense, so
far no one anywhere can know this.


Can you suggest a way we can estimate this?

ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that 
it has actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence 
because they are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will 
be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.



I don't know if 50% of the data for Australia would be lost, which
would not be in my interest, so why would agree to the change over and
be steam rolled by people in other parts of the world only caring
about what's best in their interest?


BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying 
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of 
Australians.



This means that the project might still not reach "critical mass" if people
didn't choose to relicence. The outcome of the ballot(s) would be rendered
void. Everyone's time would be wasted and the will of the community would be
less clear than ever before.


This is exactly the point, unless we split the license change
agreement up and have a separate community vote on the change over
once it's know the state of relicensing a lot of us are nervous about
agreeing to relicense.


Someone voting for something is no guarantee that they will do it.

All there is to fear is fear of fear. ;-)

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSC  wrote:
> The new contributor rights also waters down my effective
> veto rights to control future licenses.

That's one of its great strengths - 150,000 people each with a veto is
not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to change. Could you
imagine if we all had vetos over every other part of the project? The
new logo? Or if everyone got a veto on every post to the mailing list?
None of my emails would ever get through ;-)

> I feel OSMF have overstepping their
> stewardship bounds to become the gatekeepers.

I disagree - the proposed contributor terms has the OSMF being the
"stewards" when suggesting future license changes (and presumably
doing stewardship type things with getting legal advice etc) but the
gatekeepers are now a large majority of the active contributors,
without any effective vetos from un-contactable people. It solidifies
the community as being more important than particular individuals,
which I'm happy to see.

Cheers,
Andy

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/15/2010 11:53 PM, 80n wrote:


There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair.  Exactly 100% of
all contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they
are willing to contribute their data under that license.


The OSMF vote is also an undeniable fact.

As is the fact that BY-SA doesn't apply to data. Such as geodata.

And that ODbL is, like BY-SA, a share-alike licence. That has been 
designed to apply to data.


So the facts are that we have a licence that doesn't apply, a licence 
that can, and a vote to see if people will make the necessary transition.



That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA.  Where's the mandate for ODbL?


At this point there's a mandate from OSMF and the voluntary relicencing 
will show whether there's a mandate from the community or not.



After more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a
clue how much support there is.


So let's find out by giving people the opportunity to use it.

- Rob

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 07/15/2010 11:39 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> I'm aware of that, that isn't my point, my point is I want to make an
>> informed decision on how much data will be lost if we relicense, so
>> far no one anywhere can know this.
>>
>
> Can you suggest a way we can estimate this?
>

It would be nice if people could publicly record their intentions
(yes/no/undecided) without committing to anything.  Then we just go through
the database periodically and tally up the numbers.

ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it
> has actually been written to cover data.

That's not at all correct.  The main change between BY-SA and ODbL is the
requirement to release the database whenever you use the database.

Personally, I think that's a horribly onerous requirement.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 07/15/2010 11:53 PM, 80n wrote:
>
>>
>> There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair.  Exactly 100% of
>> all contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they
>> are willing to contribute their data under that license.
>>
>
> The OSMF vote is also an undeniable fact.
>
> As is the fact that BY-SA doesn't apply to data. Such as geodata.
>

The ODbL doesn't apply to data either.  It even says so (see section 2.2).
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote:
>

Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote
were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the
ODbL.


Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to 
have a better understanding of data law.



(different people and areas have different licensing situations). I
might even license my previous data to ODbL in a deal to get that up and
running. Share alike (ODbL) is just too complex to be workable (Creative
Commons agrees with me). Of course, it would not be as comprehensive as
an SA-licensed OSM, but it would be more legally predictable.


I have no confidence in Science Commons's evaluation of other licences 
when they won't even admit that CC0 has the word "licence" in it.


It would be a bigger change from BY-SA to CC0 (CC0 is the only workable 
international "public domain dedication" system) than from BY-SA to ODbL.


ODbL *is* complex and I do sometimes worry that it puts the cart before 
the horse in terms of protecting users of data from restrictions. But 
there *are* such restrictions around the world, and OSM exists for the 
freedom of all its users.


- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 09:52 AM, Anthony wrote:


The ODbL doesn't apply to data either.  It even says so (see section 2.2).


It's easier to write "data" than "copyright and database right on 
databases" but you're right and sloppy shorthand is misleading so I 
apologize. :-)


- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread TimSC


/Andy Allan wrote:
/

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSChttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk>>  wrote:
>/  The new contributor rights also waters down my effective
/>/  veto rights to control future licenses.
/
That's one of its great strengths - 150,000 people each with a veto is
not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to change.
   

If that were true, the OBdL licensing would definitely fail.

TimSC

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 07/16/2010 09:52 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>>
>> The ODbL doesn't apply to data either.  It even says so (see section 2.2).
>>
>
> It's easier to write "data" than "copyright and database right on
> databases" but you're right and sloppy shorthand is misleading so I
> apologize. :-)
>

BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole, even if it
doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database.  So you're wrong
that this is an undeniable fact.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 09:49 AM, Anthony wrote:


ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being
that it has actually been written to cover data.

That's not at all correct.  The main change between BY-SA and ODbL is
the requirement to release the database whenever you use the database.

Personally, I think that's a horribly onerous requirement.


You are required to make an *offer*, only to *users* (not the world), 
whenever you Use it *publicly*.


It's a source provision requirement, which makes sense given how 
databases are used to create maps (or whatever). This has precedents in 
copyleft software licences and it is a means of ensuring that users of 
OSM data are all free to use that data.


Which is the intent of using BY-SA but yes source provision is a 
material change. I do not personally regard it as the main change but I 
can understand how people who will actually have to provide the data would.


Looking at the wording, 4.6 appears to be intended to be equivalent to 
the (A)GPL. I do not believe it is any more onerous than the (A)GPL 
unless I am missing something.


- Rob.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:


BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole, even if
it doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database.  So you're
wrong that this is an undeniable fact.


Which jurisdiction are we talking here?

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread 80n

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair.  Exactly 100% of
> all
> > contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
> > willing to contribute their data under that license.
>
> Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
>

Everyone had two options:  1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to some
other project (plenty to choose from).

Nobody forced you to contribute to OSM.  You agreed to CC-BY-SA.


Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different
> license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous,
> especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL
> without any mass hysteria.
>

> > That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA.  Where's the mandate for ODbL?
> After
> > more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a clue how
> > much support there is.
>
> "They" do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of
> contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to
> say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a
> time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I
> expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing
> to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing,
> since that works in your favour too.
>
> After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's
> pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the
> fundamental problems with it,


Ah yes.  Those fundamental problems.  Perhaps it's time to revisit them.
The Chicken Little predictions that the sky would fall in clearly haven't
happened.  The spirit of the license is overwhelmingly respected and there
is evidence of large scale use of the data (MapQuest for example) and
serious mainstream interest (see list of SotM sponsors).  So what were the
problems again?



> and have little interest in any other
> option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how
> many people want ODbL.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> ___
> 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 Cut-over and critical mass

On 16 July 2010 18:35, Rob Myers  wrote:
>> 48% for, 6% against, no clear majority...
>
> The largest single voting category is clearly the "for" vote.
>
> And within the cast votes the result is even clearer.

I guess you misunderstand what "clear majority" means, that is 50.1%
for, not 48% for...

>>> The informal poll indicates that for the most part they are not.
>>
>> This is like Fox taking a poll about how people voted and then
>> declaring a winner rather than actually waiting for votes to be
>> counted, it's meaningless for the most part and further more the poll
>> used doesn't link to actual accounts so there is nothing stopping
>> people from gaming the system.
>
> There isn't, but the OSM community aren't 4chan.

How does that make it any better, anyone with suitable motivation
could simply extract a list of usernames from the planet dump and
start casting votes for and against with enough bias for the outcome
they choose without making it look like they're actively gaming the
system. If you like I would be happy to give you a demonstration
rather than abstract descriptions so as not to give people howto
manual on it.

> People will not vote to change over if they disagree with the change-over.

Does saying 'no' mean they disagree with the change over or the license?

> Can you suggest a way we can estimate this?

There is simply to many variables to estimate it. What needs to be
done is the process changes to remove commitment regardless if people
are for or against ODBL, and then have a vote to commit to a change at
a later date.

> ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it
> has actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because
> they are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of
> a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Several people have made suggestions on how to prevent this from
occurring, but you don't seem interested.

>> I don't know if 50% of the data for Australia would be lost, which
>> would not be in my interest, so why would agree to the change over and
>> be steam rolled by people in other parts of the world only caring
>> about what's best in their interest?
>
> BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying to
> continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of Australians.

You haven't been paying attention have you?

There have been several imports of government data licensed under
cc-by for Australia and there is also LINZ data for New Zealand which
is under a similar cc-by license, a lot of people have been pushing
for a PD style license which would make that data incompatible,
assuming that ODBL or the new TCs don't making it incompatible
already, do you really want to upset an entire region of the planet?

> Someone voting for something is no guarantee that they will do it.

Agreeing to ODBL isn't voting for something.

> All there is to fear is fear of fear. ;-)

The road to hell is paved by good intentions...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
> BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying 
> to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of 
> Australians.

a complete untruth

I see that you are based in UK
so I'm not sure how you obtained such advice.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
> As is the fact that BY-SA doesn't apply to data. Such as geodata.

Good enough for the Australian Government to initially release its own data 
incluidng geodata as CC-by-SA, later amended to CC-by

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread Kai Krueger

Rob Myers wrote:
> 
> If we are allowed to arbitrarily redefine how votes should be counted 
> then, as I say, only 6.05% of the total possible electorate voted 
> against relicencing.
> 

There appear to be some indications that the LWG are at least considering a
final vote amongst all active contributors.

If indeed they decide to hold that final vote, then all the argument about
the previous votes if it does or does not represent the community if it is
or is not a majority becomes a mute point. In that case (should it be
successful) there would both be clear statement by the community that they
accept OdBL (i.e. they relicense the data) and that the majority of active
contributors agree that the consequences are clearly acceptable (vote for
flicking the switch over to OdBL).

That would allow everyone to draw their own conclusions if the relicensing
should go ahead and particularly based on all possible facts (unlike any of
the other votes that (could) have happened beforehand)

That way, it does not matter if there are 1 different criteria by 1
different contributors and decisions, as there will be a clear way to
arbitrate between them to ensure one single outcome that is clearly
acceptable to the majority.

In a case of such a vote, if you think the process was fine so far, then
great. And if you think the process was wrong and unfair,  then well it was
unfortunate and OSMF should learn from it, but it is in the past and the
future is what matters. So again no point on arguing about it any more. Lets
try and make this process (what ever the outcome) no more damaging to the
community as it already is.

So how about we give the LWG a bit of time to digest this thread, discuss
the possibility of a vote right at the end and wait for a clear statement by
them. (After all, they are only voluteers too and only meet once a week, so
they will need a bit of time) Having endless discussions on if what is in
the past was right or wrong on the other hand is of limited productive
value.

Kai
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5301222.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 10:25 AM, John Smith wrote:

On 16 July 2010 18:35, Rob Myers  wrote:

48% for, 6% against, no clear majority...


The largest single voting category is clearly the "for" vote.

And within the cast votes the result is even clearer.


I guess you misunderstand what "clear majority" means, that is 50.1%
for, not 48% for...


We're probably hitting different usages here.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Majority


There isn't, but the OSM community aren't 4chan.


How does that make it any better, anyone with suitable motivation
could simply extract a list of usernames from the planet dump and
start casting votes for and against with enough bias for the outcome
they choose without making it look like they're actively gaming the
system. If you like I would be happy to give you a demonstration
rather than abstract descriptions so as not to give people howto
manual on it.


I'm sure someone could also hack any vote that required a log-in. Which 
doesn't really get us anywhere.



People will not vote to change over if they disagree with the change-over.


Does saying 'no' mean they disagree with the change over or the license?


It means they disagree with the change-over to the licence.


Can you suggest a way we can estimate this?


There is simply to many variables to estimate it.


Then complaining that there is not an estimate is futile.


ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it
has actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because
they are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of
a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Several people have made suggestions on how to prevent this from
occurring, but you don't seem interested.


s/interested/convinced/


I don't know if 50% of the data for Australia would be lost, which
would not be in my interest, so why would agree to the change over and
be steam rolled by people in other parts of the world only caring
about what's best in their interest?


BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying to
continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of Australians.


You haven't been paying attention have you?


Failure to agree with someone does not always indicate failure to 
understand them.



There have been several imports of government data licensed under
cc-by for Australia and there is also LINZ data for New Zealand which
is under a similar cc-by license, a lot of people have been pushing
for a PD style license which would make that data incompatible,
assuming that ODBL or the new TCs don't making it incompatible
already, do you really want to upset an entire region of the planet?


I will quite happily upset the entire planet. But that is not my intention.

Has anyone asked the Australian or New Zealand governments how scared 
they would be of ODbL?



Someone voting for something is no guarantee that they will do it.


Agreeing to ODBL isn't voting for something.


It's doing something.


All there is to fear is fear of fear. ;-)


The road to hell is paved by good intentions...


Indeed.

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan  wrote:
>> Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
>
> Everyone had two options:  1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to some
> other project (plenty to choose from).
>
> Nobody forced you to contribute to OSM.  You agreed to CC-BY-SA.

Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW
London. So it's a crazy line of argument that you are following.

But there's more to OSM than the license, and if the project wants to
change the license, and I think the new license is reasonable, then
I'm happy to change. I've contributed to wikipedia under different
licenses over the years too, you know.

This line of discussion has turned from daft to pointless.

Cheers,
Andy

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 10:28 AM, Liz wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:

BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of
Australians.


a complete untruth


Then I sincerely apologize. :-(

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
> Has anyone asked the Australian or New Zealand governments how scared 
> they would be of ODbL?

This statement indicates your complete failure to understand political 
process.

I'm not young, I'm white haired actually, and glib remarks like this don't 
contribute to the discussion.

The government has little control over the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy took 
many years to agree to any data release, and we would expect that the process 
of agreeing to another licence by those bureaucrats to be as convoluted as the 
process here. It would also take a minimum of three years, starting from after 
the next election. If we ask "now" it won't happen because an Australian 
election date is imminent.

I don't know how long it took to get LINZ data released - I'm not sure when 
the process was started.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan  wrote:
> Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
> didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
> Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW
> London. So it's a crazy line of argument that you are following.

It isn't crazy or ridiculous, he actually has a point, if I didn't
agree with cc-by-sa I could have spent my time contributing to google
under their license, but I don't like their license I prefer
cc-by-sa...

New users can't choose between cc-by-sa or odbl, and this is why
shrink wrap licenses get called into question, most contracts are no
longer a meeting of the minds, it's a case of take it or leave it, so
new users just have to either live with it to go and support google.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan  wrote:
>> Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
>> didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
>> Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW
>> London. So it's a crazy line of argument that you are following.
>
> It isn't crazy or ridiculous, he actually has a point, if I didn't
> agree with cc-by-sa I could have spent my time contributing to google
> under their license, but I don't like their license I prefer
> cc-by-sa...

No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
suggest that nobody wants to relicense and that anyone who does needs
to fork the project. That's the ridiculous part.

It's got nothing to do with Google and it's not helpful to drag them
into the discussion.

Cheers,
Andy

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On 16 July 2010 20:23, Andy Allan  wrote:
> No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
> the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
> suggest that nobody wants to relicense and that anyone who does needs
> to fork the project. That's the ridiculous part.

You are correct, it's obvious that there is some people unhappy with
the status quo.

> It's got nothing to do with Google and it's not helpful to drag them
> into the discussion.

It could have been any community that offers map editing similar to
OSM, Google just happens to be the most obvious alternative.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread 80n

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Andy Allan  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan 
> wrote:
> >> Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
> >
> > Everyone had two options:  1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to
> some
> > other project (plenty to choose from).
> >
> > Nobody forced you to contribute to OSM.  You agreed to CC-BY-SA.
>
> Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
> didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
> Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW
> London. So it's a crazy line of argument that you are following.
>
> Using the assertion that 30,000 people have agreed to ODbL already is the
crazy line of argument.

Everyone knows that new users are very trusting when signing up to an
established project with a fine reputation.  The sign up page doesn't even
link to ODbL nor to the human readable summary.  How many people do you
think actually know what they are signing up for?

In a truly open project there is no need to be so underhand.





> But there's more to OSM than the license, and if the project wants to
> change the license, and I think the new license is reasonable, then
> I'm happy to change. I've contributed to wikipedia under different
> licenses over the years too, you know.
>
> This line of discussion has turned from daft to pointless.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> ___
> 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 Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread Frederik Ramm


John,

John Smith wrote:

You are correct, it's obvious that there is some people unhappy with
the status quo.


I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like 
living in a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute 
- you might like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the 
menu. The status quo is volatile, and is soon going to be a status quo 
ante - one way or another.



It's got nothing to do with Google and it's not helpful to drag them
into the discussion.


It could have been any community that offers map editing similar to
OSM, Google just happens to be the most obvious alternative.


Google is not an obvious alternative. The only respect in which they are 
remotely similar to OSM is technology; they don't have the same kind of 
community and they don't produce the kind of output that OSM 
contributors want.


Personally I don't see any alternative to OSM that comes close, even 
remotely.


Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread 80n

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 16 July 2010 20:23, Andy Allan  wrote:
> > No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
> > the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
> > suggest that nobody wants to relicense and that anyone who does needs
> > to fork the project. That's the ridiculous part.
>
> You are correct, it's obvious that there is some people unhappy with
> the status quo.
>
> But, seemingly still happy enough to continue contributing to it.

If there was really some serious problems with the status-quo then a fork or
a competing project would have already happened.



> > It's got nothing to do with Google and it's not helpful to drag them
> > into the discussion.
>
> It could have been any community that offers map editing similar to
> OSM, Google just happens to be the most obvious alternative.
>
> ___
> 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 Cut-over and critical mass

On 16 July 2010 20:40, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there was really some serious problems with the status-quo then a fork or
> a competing project would have already happened.

That isn't worst case, worst case is where the sky falls down and some
company takes the data and doesn't give back... Fork isn't necessarily
a bad outcome, just like other projects have forked over time due to
differing opinions on how things should be run...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On 16 July 2010 20:39, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like living in
> a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute - you might
> like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the menu. The
> status quo is volatile, and is soon going to be a status quo ante - one way
> or another.

Considering how many people seem to be pro-PD, wouldn't the status quo
be in their interests if copyright doesn't cover data?

> Google is not an obvious alternative. The only respect in which they are

Stop being so facetious, you knew what I meant.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread Dave Stubbs

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 20:39, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like living in
>> a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute - you might
>> like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the menu. The
>> status quo is volatile, and is soon going to be a status quo ante - one way
>> or another.
>
> Considering how many people seem to be pro-PD, wouldn't the status quo
> be in their interests if copyright doesn't cover data?
>

Yes, except that it's then not a level playing field. People
respecting the spirit end up with less rights than those with enough
lawyers and legal advice who are willing to ignore the licence, and
that's no good for anyone.

Which is why I'll be agreeing to the ODbL which is pretty much status quo++.

Dave

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On 16 July 2010 21:08, Dave Stubbs  wrote:
> Yes, except that it's then not a level playing field. People
> respecting the spirit end up with less rights than those with enough
> lawyers and legal advice who are willing to ignore the licence, and
> that's no good for anyone.

I was being facetious :)

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread James Livingston

On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has 
> actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they 
> are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of a 
> self-fulfilling prophecy.

While that is definitely one of the main changes, it's not the only one - there 
is also:
* Tiles do not have to be under the same license as the DB (whether or not 
people realised what when originally choosing CC-BY-SA)
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated

Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also:
* Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do 
contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks)
* Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA, 
CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission

> BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying to 
> continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of Australians.

Assuming you mean protecting contributor's right to be attributed a number of 
Australian groups would disagree - including our government.

-- 
James

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread James Livingston

On 16/07/2010, at 6:28 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair.  Exactly 100% of all
>> contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
>> willing to contribute their data under that license.
> 
> Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
> Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different
> license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous,
> especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL
> without any mass hysteria.

Using 30 000 people signing up with dual-licensing is just as disingenuous, we 
have no way of knowing how many people would have signed up with the old 
licence in the same period. I doubt there at many people who changed their mind 
after seeing ODbL+CTs, but we can't know.

> "They" do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of
> contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to
> say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a
> time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I
> expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing
> to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing,
> since that works in your favour too.

I absolutely think we need a time limit, I don't how long it should be, but we 
need one so we don't stay in the future-licence limbo forever.

I'm sure there are quite a few people who have data that they have been given 
access to that they'd like to import into OSM, but aren't due to not knowing 
what licence it will be under in the future. I had some CC-BY data (parks and 
conservation area boundaries, which can't be acquired on the ground) which I 
wasn't uploading because I didn't know if I'd have to remove it after a licence 
change.

Since it's been dragging on for ages, I've just gone "screw it" and started 
uploading it. Someone can go and sort out the mess of removing it if we change 
licence.

> After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's
> pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the
> fundamental problems with it, and have little interest in any other
> option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how
> many people want ODbL.

And you want to change to ODbL, ignoring the fundamental problems with that, 
regardless of how many people don't.

These arguments are just going to go round and round until we try to relicense 
and get an answer one way or the other. Hopefully soon.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread James Livingston

On 16/07/2010, at 9:26 AM, TimSC wrote:
> I agree with Richard Weait: the community is more important than the data.

Definitely. It's not losing data during a relicensing that I'm worried about 
(that's annoying though), it's losing people, and the longer this high-rhetotic 
fighting goes on before an actual "do you re-license" question, the more people 
I think we will lose when it doesn't go their way.

It sounds like a lot people turning from likely "not happy with the outcome, 
but will contribute anyway" type people to "screw you, I'll go fork my own 
project" people (and I'm heading fast toward the latter category), due to the 
constant mostly-pointless arguments.

> Although, as Simon Ward said "Everyone has a say on whether their 
> contributions can be licensed under the new license.", I am uncomfortable 
> with the ODbL process and I resent not being polled before the license change 
> was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in the process without checking they 
> have a clear majority of contributors behind the process (and not just OSMF 
> members).

How would you actually poll the contributors? The only way I could see it being 
done that satisfies everyone is in exactly the same way that the actual 
relicensing question is going to be asked, and that is a very heavyweight thing 
to do just for a "what do people feel" poll.

If you like, the actual contributor decision is a poll with legal consequences.

> Or conduct an inclusive poll of contributors and then make an informed 
> decision - which will add months to an already tortuous process.

I don't think any poll will help at all - either it won't get many responses 
and people will question it, or it will and we may have a well tried the actual 
relicensing.

> My dream scenario is OSMF polls contributors with unbiased supporting 
> documentation

I don't possibly know how you'd produce unbiased supporting documentation for 
this. Aside from the boring legal bits actual lawyers tell you, all the stuff 
like "reason we are doing this" is going to have to be biased somehow.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Compatible licenses

2010-07-16 Thread Richard Weait

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston
 wrote:

> * Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA, 
> CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission

This is a tremendous improvement in my opinion.  I'd like to see every
data publisher as informed and enthusiastic about having contributed
to OpenStreetMap as the everyday mapper.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread TimSC


James Livingston wrote:

>/  Although, as Simon Ward said "Everyone has a say on whether their contributions 
can be licensed under the new license.", I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I 
resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in 
the process without checking they have a clear majority of contributors behind the process 
(and not just OSMF members).
/
How would you actually poll the contributors? The only way I could see it being done that 
satisfies everyone is in exactly the same way that the actual relicensing question is 
going to be asked, and that is a very heavyweight thing to do just for a "what do 
people feel" poll.

If it were just a choice between CC-BY-SA and ODbL, I might agree. But this is 
a false dichotomy. We could write any number of licenses or revise ODbL based 
on feedback (except it would be better to resolve this soon). We could go PDDL, 
CC0 or PD. We could fork. We could do different licenses for different regions. 
We could do a single transferable vote or majority wins. The current 
relicensing question also doesn't distinguish between what I want for the 
future and what I would tolerate. So the question might ask in a poll is far 
from obvious.

TimSC

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compatible licenses

2010-07-16 Thread Brian Quinion

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston
>  wrote:
>
>> * Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. 
>> CC-BY-SA, CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's 
>> permission
>
> This is a tremendous improvement in my opinion.  I'd like to see every
> data publisher as informed and enthusiastic about having contributed
> to OpenStreetMap as the everyday mapper.

Have the Ordnance Survey given permission to OSMF for data to be
imported under the terms of the contributor agreement?

My reading of the contributor terms is that I have to be the copyright
owner of all data I add.  But some of the data I've added recently was
based on OSSV tracing and as such I don't own the copyright - I'm
licensed to use it SS-BY by Ordnance Survey.

As such as of the second I added something based on licensed data I am
unable to sign up to the contributor terms.

Please correct me if you spot a mistake here - I'd love to know what
I've missed.

--
 Brian

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Compatible licenses

2010-07-16 Thread TimSC


Brian Quinion wrote:

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Richard Weaithttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk>>  wrote:

/  On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston

/>>/  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk>>  wrote:
/>>/
/>>>/  * Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. 
CC-BY-SA, CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission
/>>/
/>>/  This is a tremendous improvement in my opinion.  I'd like to see every
/>>/  data publisher as informed and enthusiastic about having contributed
/>>/  to OpenStreetMap as the everyday mapper.
/>

My reading of the contributor terms is that I have to be the copyright
owner of all data I add.  But some of the data I've added recently was
based on OSSV tracing and as such I don't own the copyright - I'm
licensed to use it SS-BY by Ordnance Survey.


Brian

That is my interpretation as well. I already raised this issue with the LWG. The good 
news is this saves me having to worry about the relicensing if I must say "no" 
because of a legal issue.

TimSC


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 11:08 AM, Liz wrote:


The government has little control over the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy took
many years to agree to any data release, and we would expect that the process
of agreeing to another licence by those bureaucrats to be as convoluted as the
process here. It would also take a minimum of three years, starting from after
the next election. If we ask "now" it won't happen because an Australian
election date is imminent.


Thank you, that quantitative explanation makes the problem clear.

I am going to go away from this part of the conversation and clue up on 
some things.


- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 01:01 PM, James Livingston wrote:

On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:

ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has 
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they are 
afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.


While that is definitely one of the main changes, it's not the only one - there 
is also:
* Tiles do not have to be under the same license as the DB (whether or not 
people realised what when originally choosing CC-BY-SA)


Yes as a copyleft zealot I'm not happy about that but it would be 
impractical otherwise, I believe. It retains as much share-alike as is 
practical.



* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated


The contract law part of the ODbL is the aspect of it that I personally 
am least comfortable with.



Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also:
* Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do 
contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks)


If there are not safeguards around such relicencing there should be.


* Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA, 
CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission


CC haven't declared any other licences compatible with BY-SA yet so 
that's not a major change.



BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying to 
continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of Australians.


I've been corrected on this so I withdraw the claim.


Assuming you mean protecting contributor's right to be attributed a number of 
Australian groups would disagree - including our government.


BY-SA (2.0 Generic 4.c) contains a number of limits to attribution. I 
think we've discussed "appropriate to the medium" on this list in the 
past for example.


I believe that the practical effect of the ODbL for attribution will be 
similar to BY-SA works that attribute via a URL.


- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote:

On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:

BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
even if
it doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database.  So
you're
wrong that this is an undeniable fact.

Which jurisdiction are we talking here?

I can't think of any jurisdiction where this wouldn't be the case.  I'm
most familiar with US copyright law, however.


Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, OKFN 
seem to think it might. I'm erring on the side of caution. If you can 
provide any clearer guidance I'd be very grateful. :-)


- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:


Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,


In the US.


OKFN
seem to think it might.


- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers > > wrote:
>>
>>On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
>>even if
>>it doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database.  So
>>you're
>>wrong that this is an undeniable fact.
>>
>>Which jurisdiction are we talking here?
>>
>> I can't think of any jurisdiction where this wouldn't be the case.  I'm
>> most familiar with US copyright law, however.
>>
>
> Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.  Databases aren't per se
copyrightable.  But they can be.

I see you're talking about the US.  So I'll provide a case for you.  Key
Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises Inc. held that
the yellow pages of the phone directory were copyrightable.  Surely the OSM
database offers "the de minimis thought needed to withstand the originality
requirement".  It doesn't take very much.

> I'm erring on the side of caution.

In what way?  With all due respect, you seem to be erring on the side which
you happen to already agree with.

I'd say that using CC-BY-SA errs on the side of caution.  Either 1) none of
OSM is copyrightable, in which case anyone can do anything with it; or 2)
some of OSM is copyrightable, in which case CC-BY-SA gives people permission
to do anything with it, so long as they give attribution and release
derivatives under CC-BY-SA.

I don't think 1 is particularly likely.  But even if it's the case, I don't
see why it's so horrible.  It just means that copyright law accomplishes
nearly precisely what CC-BY-SA was designed to accomplish - make OSM free.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass


On 07/16/2010 04:32 PM, Anthony wrote:


Making an offer still requires that you have the database available in
some sort of distributable form.  And keep it around indefinitely.  It's
a big burden to carry around while designing your system.  Just look how
long it took OSM to offer a copy of the entire history database - and
arguably they haven't even offered everything.


Ah. The lack of a timeout is a bug. :-( I should have spotted that. :-(


When I design a system to use OSM data I don't want to have to worry
about how I'm going to maintain the database in a form which I can
distribute to meet the requirements of the license.  Frankly, I'll pass
on the use of the data if I have to maintain such an onerous
requirement.  I'll get the data from somewhere else.  Or I'll just use
the data and ignore the ODbL, since it likely isn't enforceable anyway.


Do you have a write-up of your opinion of the ODbL's enforceability 
anywhere (I'm sorry if I've missed this before)?



It absolutely has precedents.  And it absolutely is *not* a requirement
of CC-BY-SA.  So don't try to imply that ODbL is basically CC-BY-SA for
data.  It isn't.It's more like GPL for data.


It is similar in intent to BY-SA, as sharealike is not copyleft. But the 
material differences are clearly more important than I had considered, 
so I will address this differently in future.



Only with much less
usage so much less certainty over exactly what it means.


Yes that's a fair criticism.

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread Francis Davey

On 16 July 2010 17:11, Rob Myers  wrote:
>
> Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, OKFN
> seem to think it might. I'm erring on the side of caution. If you can
> provide any clearer guidance I'd be very grateful. :-)

You might want to read the Supreme Court decision in Feist and subsequent cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service

is a wikipedia summary (though you should read the case law if you
want to really understand the issues involved). The key point is that
merely having invested a lot of effort in collecting information is
not sufficient on its own to make that information subject to
copyright. How this would fit in with OSM would depend a great deal on
what it was that you were protecting.

In the EU/EEA copyright certainly does attach to a database as a
result of the database directive (96/9/EC):

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML

But there is quite a high threshold for protection since there is a
requirement that databases so protected "by reason of the selection or
arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own
intellectual creation". There is some recent litigation in the English
High Court as to whether football fixtures lists are subject to
database copyright.

In the EU/EEA we also have a database right which is different (a form
of IP in databases separate from copyright) which is more closely
linked to the amount of work/investment in a database, but it is not
entirely straightforward. For example football fixtures lists aren't
so protected (because the leagues are creating them anyway as a part
of running a football league).

In Australia, there was an important decision last year in the High
Court involving TV schedules:

http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/cases-news/2009-cases/u29768/

Its quite subtle but it represents (in my view) a rejection that mere
investment or effort in creating a collection of information is enough
to give copyright protection, which would make mere data not
protectable.

Sorry to but in (as an outsider) with my legal half-pennyworth but I
hope it is some help. As a copyright lawyer this is all very
fascinating intellectually, but extremely difficult when it comes to
advising clients.

-- 
Francis Davey

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> I see you're talking about the US.  So I'll provide a case for you.  Key
> Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises Inc. held that
> the yellow pages of the phone directory were copyrightable.  Surely the OSM
> database offers "the de minimis thought needed to withstand the originality
> requirement".  It doesn't take very much.
>

Let me add that I'm of the opinion that it's likely a "thin copyright".  If
you want to extract all the libraries in the OSM database and import them
into your proprietary database, I doubt there's going to be any way to stop
you, whether OSM is under CC-BY-SA, ODbL, or anything else (*).  But for
wholesale copying of the entire database, I think you'd have a really hard
time arguing that there's absolutely no originality at all.

(*) Incidentally, that's probably what I'll probably wind up doing if OSM
goes ODbL - I'll extract particular specific features that I find most
interesting/useful and ignore the ODbL, which won't apply since I've never
agreed to it.

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> Do you have a write-up of your opinion of the ODbL's enforceability
> anywhere (I'm sorry if I've missed this before)?

I believe it has been discussed on this list, by a member of CC, who
basically threatened to upload the OSM database to a P2P filesharing service
with no license if OSM goes with ODbL.  Basically, to the extent the data
isn't copyrightable (and in jurisdictions where database rights are not
recognized), ODbL is just as enforceable as CC-BY-SA.  It tries to add
contract restrictions on people, but a contract isn't binding on people who
don't agree to the contract.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Francis Davey  wrote:

> But there is quite a high threshold for protection since there is a
> requirement that databases so protected "by reason of the selection or
> arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own
> intellectual creation".

At the very least, doesn't the categorization of roads into
motorway/trunk/primary/secondary/etc constitute "arrangement of the
contents"?  I find it hard to believe there's *absolutely no originality* in
OSM.  There's a little bit, even if it is the less interesting (to me)
parts.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread Francis Davey

On 16 July 2010 17:55, Anthony  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Francis Davey  wrote:
>>
>> But there is quite a high threshold for protection since there is a
>> requirement that databases so protected "by reason of the selection or
>> arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own
>> intellectual creation".
>
> At the very least, doesn't the categorization of roads into
> motorway/trunk/primary/secondary/etc constitute "arrangement of the
> contents"?  I find it hard to believe there's *absolutely no originality* in
> OSM.  There's a little bit, even if it is the less interesting (to me)
> parts.

Well, of course it depends on what part of the OSM one is talking
about (that is what is taken), as you say some of it does very much
seem to fit the criteria. There hasn't been very much litigation on
database copyright (actually not all that much on database right
either, though there has been some) so its boundaries are as yet not
entirely clear. Because it is a point of harmonisation across European
law one cannot simply assume that it will be much like originality
criteria extant in (say) English common law - historically England has
tended to set the lowest threshold for copyright of any jurisdiction
with which I am familiar.

I'd guess you were right, but that's about as far as I can go.

-- 
Francis Davey

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:14:46PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> And that's where the fear comes in, just because you may have good
> intentions doesn't mean that it won't harm my goals.

Did you think there would be no losers?  The project can’t please
everyone.  If you care that much, why not campaign with reasons against
the license change, and encourage lots of OSMers to disagree with it. If
you’re lucky you might get enough support to halt the process.  With all
of your talk about majorities, surely this would be the way to change
things, and not just a thread of whining and fear about the loss of
imported data on the list.

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 Cut-over and critical mass

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
> * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated

Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license.  Unfortunately people thought that because laws about
rights to data are vastly different that contract law is needed to
balance it out—it’s apparently unfair otherwise.  I don’t really believe
that.

> Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also:
> * Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do 
> contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks)

I didn’t realise it was that short a time period. :/

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version

2010-07-16 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

   I noticed something that had escaped my attention until now. The 
contributor terms say that OSMF will release the data under ODbL 1.0, 
CC-BY-SA 2.0 or another free and open license accepted by 2/3 of active 
members.


Notice the absence of any "or later" clause here. This means that if 
ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we would 
have to go through the whole "2/3 of active members have to accept" poll 
to upgrade.


Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing "bad" new license 
versions, or is it an oversight?


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  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 Cut-over and critical mass

On 17 July 2010 02:44, Francis Davey  wrote:
> In Australia, there was an important decision last year in the High
> Court involving TV schedules:
>
> http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/cases-news/2009-cases/u29768/

I've been told that Telstra (white/yellow pages owner among other
things) is still running round trying to get that ruling over turned
"for the public good, so there is certainty", it won't be properly
settled till next year I think.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

Forwarded from talk because it might miss someone not on both lists

--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more 
inclusive?
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010, 01:13:36
From: Roland Olbricht 
To: t...@openstreetmap.org

> I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it
> was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk.
[...]
> What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive?

Just some bullet points at first, explanation follows:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But 
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the 
legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let 
develop such a tool.
- Please present a sound and complete technical solution to disentangle the 
data between the relicensed and the not relicensed.
- Be prepared on a successive per-region move to the license. The communities 
in different parts of the world are at different pace.

I don't think that the mappers in general are annoyed about that somebody 
works on legal issues. But don't forget that one of the key features of the 
project is the message: "Care for the data and the applications - we promise 
you won't be affected by legal trouble". Thus, I would consider the license as 
a technical detail, like the change from API v0.5 to API v0.6.

Now, if the API change would have damaged an unknown amount of data at unknown 
places, if would have been never done. This is because those responsible for 
the API change were aware that the new API is a mean, not and end. Legal 
things are less logical than technical things, thus everybody would accept 
more collateral damage. But still, I would expect good faith from the LWG: it 
is technical feasible to preview the impact of the license change on the data 
with an appropriate tool. Some suggestions

- Have another read-only mirror that contains only the already relicensed 
data. This would allow to render a map with the ODbL-avaiable. Thus, the data 
loss or not-loss gets easily visible. We only need another server and a list 
of all user-ids that have so far relicensed, and about 4 weeks to make 
everything working.

- Don't use an extra server, but make the relicensing data available via the 
main API. This needs much more brainpower, would save a server and prevents 
the user-id list from being published. I would estimate this takes at least 8 
weeks to develop.

I would volunteer to do option 1 if I get time until the end of the year. 
Maybe somebody else could offer this faster.

Then, the algorithm "unbroken chain of history of ODbL users" is close to 
nonsense. An easy exploit would be a bot, possible camouflaged by different 
user accounts, that systematically deletes and re-inserts every object. Then, 
all data would have "unbroken chain of history" but won't have in general. 
Note that massive delete and re-create takes place from time to time, e.g. 
when imports and synced with pre-existing data. I claim more time to first get 
a more elaborate algorithm for the data move decision, so please remove the 
fixed timings from the plan.

And, of course, things like translating messages into foreign languages and 
back, explaining the licensing issues at all to mappers in foreign systems of 
legislation and so on takes time. Indeed much more time than to implement a 
license within the special legal system it was designed for. I don't find the 
issues addressed in the implementation plan at all.

Cheers,

Roland

___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On 17 July 2010 04:07, Simon Ward  wrote:
> Did you think there would be no losers?  The project can’t please
> everyone.  If you care that much, why not campaign with reasons against
> the license change, and encourage lots of OSMers to disagree with it. If
> you’re lucky you might get enough support to halt the process.  With all
> of your talk about majorities, surely this would be the way to change
> things, and not just a thread of whining and fear about the loss of
> imported data on the list.

At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of
course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an
informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't
and ODBL still goes ahead then I'll be forced to fork.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version

On 17 July 2010 04:58, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing "bad" new license
> versions, or is it an oversight?

That clause most likely makes cc-by data incompatible, since a "free
and open license" may not require attribution, regardless if you
haven't contributed in a while or are not contactable for 3 weeks, the
2/3rds may vote for it anyway.

I did a rough check of all data with attribution=* tags and it was
considerable (up to 1/3rd of the data) for Australia once I figured
out how to cull nodes/ways that were referenced by filtered
relations/ways/nodes etc.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

2010-07-16 Thread Heiko Jacobs


Roland Olbricht schrieb:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But 
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the 
legalese.


I would say that the new licence might be good, beter than the old one
BUT:
I also interested MUCH MORE in the data than the legalese.

The last days I read a lot on the process proposed on changing the
licence, especially about the technical way of deciding which node/way
might be ok, which not, if anyone of the mappers decided to say no.
I saw that there will never be a solution that can work.
E.g. the history is incomplete if ways are splitted or joined, so you
cannot see all data affected of such mappers. Also you cannot decide,
which copyright is more valuable if to persons did something.
There were a lot of examples etc. in german forum and talk-de mailing list
from me and others, but my english is not goog enough to repeat them all.
The process will never work,
so stop this process and find another solution!
The solution now ALWAYS leads to data loss, more or less.
But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons.
Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data.

The process now gives me only one vote: a combination of new
Contributor Terms, new licence for the whole project and new licence
for my own data. Although the new licence is good: I have to say no
because of the data loss, which ALWAYS will appear with changing licence.
Much more arguments on talk-de

But don't forget that one of the key features of the 
project is the message: "Care for the data and the applications - we promise 
you won't be affected by legal trouble". Thus, I would consider the license as 
a technical detail, like the change from API v0.5 to API v0.6.


+1

Legal 
things are less logical than technical things, thus everybody would accept 
more collateral damage.


No, why? Wikipedia has lost 0 bytes

Then, the algorithm "unbroken chain of history of ODbL users" is close to 
nonsense.


+1024!

Mueck


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:08:07AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of
> course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an
> informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't
> and ODBL still goes ahead then I'll be forced to fork.

I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be
able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put
to contributors.

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] Upgrading to future ODbL version

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Notice the absence of any "or later" clause here. This means that if
> ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we
> would have to go through the whole "2/3 of active members have to
> accept" poll to upgrade.

I don’t see the issue with this.  A new ODbL could quite drastically
change the way it works.  Don’t be fooled by a point release—people can
version things in any way they please.

I’m a little biased: I think that the contributor terms for possible
future license changes are unnecessary, and that OSM should seek
permission from all rights holders for any license change.  Getting
people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t agree
because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in my
opinion.

It comes back to the fear of losing stuff that if the rights holders
don’t really agree OSM has no rights to anyway.

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] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
> - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But 
> this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the 
> legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let 
> develop such a tool.

I’m still struggling with how to get such statistics without first
getting an opinion—the catch‐22 I referred to earlier but John seemed to
brush off without actually thinking about it.  I’m in favour of a
non‐binding straw poll to all OSM accounts before a “final”
agree/disagree thing.

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] Upgrading to future ODbL version

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 01:36:09AM +0100, I wrote:
> Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t
> agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in
> my opinion.

The project needs to understand the consequences of a license change,
this one or any future one, and accept that it may well not be able to
apply a different license to some existing data.  It should get over the
fear of “losing” data.  If a user doesn’t agree to a new license, then
tough, their data can’t be distributed per that license.  None of this
“ooh we’re scared so we’ll make people agree to allow relicensing in the
contributor terms”.

For a project about open data, we seem to be getting awfully hung up on
keeping a tight hold on the data rather than actually making it open.

Note: I’m a copyleft fan:  I think the the data being free (freedom, not
necessarily “free of charge”) and remains free is much more important
than any attribution.

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 Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread Diane Peters

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers > > wrote:
>>
>>On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
>>even if
>>it doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database.  So
>>you're
>>wrong that this is an undeniable fact.
>>
>>Which jurisdiction are we talking here?
>>
>> I can't think of any jurisdiction where this wouldn't be the case.  I'm
>> most familiar with US copyright law, however.
>>
>
> Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, OKFN
> seem to think it might. I'm erring on the side of caution. If you can
> provide any clearer guidance I'd be very grateful. :-)
>
>
> Apologies in advance for inserting a response here - some of the below
relates to other posts on this thread (previous and subsequent).

The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that copyright
doesn't apply to databases, is not correct.  Creative Commons (and that
includes our Science Commons project) has always been careful to point out
that "data" is a broad term and can most certainly include copyrightable
content.  (We want to encourage others when they speak of "data" to be
careful to specify what they mean when they use the term.)  Standards of
originality are challenging to apply with predicable results.  They are
subjective to some degree, and they vary between jurisdictions.  We have
also been careful to point out that databases can certainly be subject to
protection under copyright (as distinguished from sui generis protection).
 Whether and to what extent databases are protected by copyright, once
again, differs jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  We believe that in most cases
users of licensed data and databases will treat them as copyrightable out of
an abundance of caution.  This is in part because “doing the math” to figure
out what is or is not restricted by copyright is uncertain and can be
painstaking, which results in high transaction costs.  However, in CC
licenses, we do not attempt to create, by means of contract, conditions on
data or databases that are not based on copyright.

In several posts on this thread the suggestion has been made that BY-SA and
ODbL are comparable, or that ODbL is just like BY-SA.  There are a number of
fundamental differences between CC's licenses and ODbL that at least from
CC's point of view make the two quite different. CC licenses are licenses,
ODbL attempts to create a binding contract; CC licenses do not rely on sui
generis database rights and our BY-SA license doesn't have a "provisioning"
requirement; CC licenses do not distinguish between a work and a "produced
work"; attribution works differently; and CC licenses are clear to apply and
impose conditions on content (including data licensed under their terms)
only where the public domain and (thereafter) fair dealing and other
exceptions and limitations to copyright leave off.  There is more, but those
differences in aggregate make the two sufficiently different so as to avoid
characterization as being generally the same or just alike, at least by
many.

One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another suggestion
earlier on this thread (apologies again for not inserting this comment
there) to the effect that CC refuses to acknowledge that CC0 contains a
license.  On the contrary, we have discussed on numerous occasions why a
fall-back license is necessary. This was a key drafting point based on input
from many of CC's legal affiliates around the world.  In many countries,
including the U.S., there is no indisputable, sure mechanism for placing a
work in the public domain. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a back-up
license that gives essentially the same rights to the public in the event
the public domain waiver is not effective for any reason. When we at CC
speak of license as opposed to public domain, our focus is on function and
practical effect, not formality.

Diane Peters
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward  wrote:
> I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be
> able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put
> to contributors.

I will, but at that point I will no longer have any chances to
exercise such a decision under the currently accepted change over
process outlined.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

2010-07-16 Thread Chris Fleming

On 16/07/10 14:03, TimSC wrote:

James Livingston wrote:

>/ Although, as Simon Ward said "Everyone has a say on whether their contributions
can be licensed under the new license.", I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I
resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in
the process without checking they have a clear majority of contributors behind the process
(and not just OSMF members).
/
How would you actually poll the contributors? The only way I could see it being done that
satisfies everyone is in exactly the same way that the actual relicensing question is
going to be asked, and that is a very heavyweight thing to do just for a "what do
people feel" poll.

If it were just a choice between CC-BY-SA and ODbL, I might agree. But this is
a false dichotomy. We could write any number of licenses or revise ODbL based
on feedback (except it would be better to resolve this soon). We could go PDDL,
CC0 or PD. We could fork. We could do different licenses for different regions.
We could do a single transferable vote or majority wins. The current
relicensing question also doesn't distinguish between what I want for the
future and what I would tolerate. So the question might ask in a poll is far
from obvious.

Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we
were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely*
different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty.

Cheers
Chris

--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?