Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk 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
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?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: 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 just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de ___ 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 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote: just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote. 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 Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: 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. Chris Do try to pay attention and keep up with the thread ;) Diane Peters of Creative Commons posted the following statement in this thread a few hours ago: 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. ODbL is something completely different. In addition the content license and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA. Structurally there are big differences. 80n ___ 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 07/17/2010 04:04 AM, Diane Peters wrote: The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct. I am sorry for misrepresenting SC's views on this. 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. I attributed this view to Science Commons, not to CC. I did so based on a conversation with John Wilbanks on this list some time ago. When we at CC speak of license as opposed to public domain, our focus is on function and practical effect, not formality. BY-SA and the ODbL are similarly both share-alike. The current conversation on this list has convinced me that I cannot make that claim without (extensive) qualification, though. - 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 09:58 PM, Liz wrote: After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was the subject of the case. If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That would need court hearings to determine. Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to negotiate terms Geodata is restricted with contracts, so it may make sense to turn that restriction against itself. But the contract aspect is still my least favourite part of the ODbL. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. In theory we have more problems with the new terms and conditions than ODBL, ODBL seems cc-by compatible, but the terms and conditions allow other free and open licenses which isn't cc-by compatible. All that is needed to fix this is add a stipulation for the free and open license to be attribution based and the problem, for us, disappears. The alternative isn't pretty, potentially up to 1/3rd of the data might disappear, so we are some what concerned at this point. ___ 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 20:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John Smith schrieb: On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? Liz schrieb: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, In the US. OKFN seem to think it might. After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was the subject of the case. The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That would need court hearings to determine. Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to negotiate terms - The entity representing the data does not 'own' the data and it could be argued has no right to be a party to a contract over the data ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. The grounds of the case was purely over if facts themselves could be copyrighted, the ruling was based on if individual facts within a database were covered by copyright, and as a result the database itself. However as soon as you add creative content it changes things, but from what I've been told, there won't be a final ruling on this till next year, in the meant time Telstra (owner of white/yellow pages) is going round trying to get this over turned. ___ 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 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. Thanks. So IceTV weren't infringing on Channel Nine's copyright as Channel Nine didn't have one on the mere facts of their programme schedule, but IceTV's combined and creativity-added database is above the creativity/originality threshold required to gain copyright protection as a (collective?) literary work? There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) - 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 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) Without a court precedent all we're left with is speculation... ___ 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 07/17/2010 04:01 PM, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) Without a court precedent all we're left with is speculation... Yes. :-/ The ODbL isn't old or widespread enough for the fact that it's avoided being involved in a lawsuit so far to count in its favour yet. - 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 Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. Thanks. So IceTV weren't infringing on Channel Nine's copyright as Channel Nine didn't have one on the mere facts of their programme schedule, but IceTV's combined and creativity-added database is above the creativity/originality threshold required to gain copyright protection as a (collective?) literary work? There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? ___ 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 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. - 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 18 July 2010 06:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. You implied one or more people made that claim, what was their reasoning for this? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
Hi, here's an interesting one. Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). Now I would like to make a slippy map overlay where areas are coloured red or green or different shades in between according to how much data is missing from the current ODbL dataset compared to the old CC-BY-SA data set. The idea being, if an area is red, it may be worth going there and resurveying the area because edits have been lost. I wonder if this is possible at all. Behind the scenes, I would have to compare the old CC-BY-SA data with the new data set to find out what happened. My tiles would be a derived work from the CC-BY-SA data set and as such licensed CC-BY-SA, no problem there. However, I would in all likelihood be creating an interim database derived from the new ODbL data set and the old CC-BY-SA data set. ODbL would require that I release that database under ODbL. But CC-BY-SA requires that if I release the database it must be under CC-BY-SA exclusively. Thus I cannot release the database, thus I cannot publish the tiles. Right? 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] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, here's an interesting one. Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). Now I would like to make a slippy map overlay where areas are coloured red or green or different shades in between according to how much data is missing from the current ODbL dataset compared to the old CC-BY-SA data set. The idea being, if an area is red, it may be worth going there and resurveying the area because edits have been lost. I wonder if this is possible at all. Behind the scenes, I would have to compare the old CC-BY-SA data with the new data set to find out what happened. My tiles would be a derived work from the CC-BY-SA data set and as such licensed CC-BY-SA, no problem there. However, I would in all likelihood be creating an interim database derived from the new ODbL data set and the old CC-BY-SA data set. ODbL would require that I release that database under ODbL. But CC-BY-SA requires that if I release the database it must be under CC-BY-SA exclusively. Thus I cannot release the database, thus I cannot publish the tiles. Or you create a thin-line style and render both tile sets without a background color One set red, one set green, both 50% transparent. Then you allow the user to combine the two tile sets, one over the other, in the browser. You don't compare or mix the data bases. The user is looking at produced works, ccbysa for the ccbysa tiles, your choice for the ODbL tiles. And the user has the option of republishing the overlay as long as they follow your licensing requirements. Or, just use them for personal reference and go mapping. How hard was that? Frederik posts many wonderful hypothetical situations. ;-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik posts many wonderful hypothetical situations. ;-) Here's a completely hypothetical situation. What if I want to import OSM POIs into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, of course, under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: The user is looking at produced works, ccbysa for the ccbysa tiles, your choice for the ODbL tiles. Here's another completely hypothetical situation. What if I use CC-BY-SA for the ODbL tiles. And then someone else converts those tiles back into a database? ___ 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 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote: 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. It certainly harmonises things a bit more, both removing some of the loopholes in various countries copyright law which people can exploit, and removing some of the fair use provisions countries have. Of course, a loophole and a fair use provides are basically the same :) I'm still not sure how useful it will be in enforcing the ODbL in the US. Consider if Bob from the US takes the OSMF-provded planet dump, produces a North America extract and makes it available on his FTP site. Jane from the US downloads it, uses it and doesn't release her Derived Database. What can we do about it? We can't use copyright or database rights to enforce it in the US (one of the main reasons for using contract as well). Ignoring any arguments about whether she could agree to a contract by downloading it from a FTP site, the only person she could have a contract with is Bob, not the OSMF. 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. :/ Three weeks isn't that long, if someone is on holiday. For example I'll be on a longer one later this year, with only intermittent Internet access and only reading my special email here if you need me while on holiday account, not my normal one. Not that we'd be re-licensing using the CTs by then, I don't even know if we'll have done the ODbL relicense. Regards, James ___ 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 17/07/2010, at 4:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: 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? It's presumably the same reason a lot of people use GPL 2.0 not GPL 2.0 or later. Who gets to call something ODbL 1.1, and how can we be sure we trust them? Consider the dodgy legal hack the FSF and Wikipedia used to do their re-licensing - Wikipedia was under GFDL 1.2 or later, and they convinced the FSF to release a GFDL 1.3 which let them relicense to CC without copyright holders' permission. I had no problem re-licenseing my small amount of Wikipedia contributions under a CC license, but what they did to do it made me trust the FSF a lot less, and I'm not going to put or later on anything I release (L)GPL in the future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Michael Barabanov schrieb: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? It's case (1) in some jurisdictions and case (2) in other jurisdictions. The OSMF can't just relicense because of the places where it is (2), but people can arguable just reuse the data in places where it is (1). There are no solution possible. Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways. And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=... Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points? And so on ... Easy, both of them - there doesn't have to be a single copyright holder for a piece of work. I don't know how to deal with the splitting-merging problem and other similar cases. OSM seems to try to take a whiter than white approach to not copying of other sources, so it would seem a bit weird to be more lax with contributor's data. Of course, the only solution that is guarantees to work is to nuke the DB and start again. I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... I don't recall that being said, but I could be wrong. A lot of us Australians posting on the list 1) don't like the ODbL a lot, and 2) wondering about all the CC-BY data we've gotten from the Govetnment. ___ 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 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. I know you didn't. But somebody did. What's your source for the statement The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. Who was it who gave this 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 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote: How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50% voting, Of the people? The US and the EU, to name but two. When did EU member nations agree to become a country? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
