Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: Not arguing against people having a choice, but I do think that, whether or not the license change happens, people should be able to get all of the old data, including history, under the terms of the existing CC-by-sa license. It has been officially said by the LWG (and is documented in the implementation plan on the wiki) that immediately before changeover, a last "cc-by-sa planet" including full history will be made available. 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] decision removing data
The only way to tell is to get case law. But that is not a problem for us, ODbL cover us. Lets keep on topic and stop all the silly hypotheticals. See LWG minutes from about a year ago if you want to see all our work about SVG. / Grant On 8/6/10, John Smith wrote: > On 6 August 2010 06:48, Jamie Smith wrote: >> They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get >> rendered. > > So a SVG file isn't copyrightable, until it is rendered? > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > -- Sent from my mobile device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 6 August 2010 06:48, Jamie Smith wrote: > They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered. So a SVG file isn't copyrightable, until it is rendered? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: > Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France, > where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your > rights. For what it’s worth, you can’t actually remove moral rights in the UK either, even though the license requires that you waive them. 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] decision removing data
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only, > have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you > suggest that they should not have a choice? Not arguing against people having a choice, but I do think that, whether or not the license change happens, people should be able to get all of the old data, including history, under the terms of the existing CC-by-sa license. > If the OSMF Board were to decide, "okay, that's it. All the data is > relicensed" without asking contributors, is that in line with their > mandate to assist OpenStreetMap but not control it? They can’t do this: It’s legally dubious (although can possibly be worked around), and it’s morally wrong (you can’t just relicense somebody else’s (yours) data without getting permission). That’s why the intention is to ask everyone to agree to the new license and contributor terms. 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] decision removing data
+1 On Aug 5, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote: > They're vector graphics. They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered. >>> Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered? >> Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form. > > This is supposed to be a mailing list for legal discussions within > OpenStreetMap and the OSM Foundation. But all members with > an IQ above 70 stopped writing twelve months ago, when they > realized this license discussion is leading exactly nowhere. > > Could we perhaps have a rule that people who stray from the > legal topic will be silently removed from the list? > > > -- > Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) > Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
They're vector graphics. They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered. Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered? Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form. This is supposed to be a mailing list for legal discussions within OpenStreetMap and the OSM Foundation. But all members with an IQ above 70 stopped writing twelve months ago, when they realized this license discussion is leading exactly nowhere. Could we perhaps have a rule that people who stray from the legal topic will be silently removed from the list? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 5 August 2010 21:25, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The test for copyrightability is some amount of creativity. Case law > > suggests that this can be very minimal. Rather than looking for what is > > factual and thus not copyrightable, let's look for what is. > > That's not correct across all systems of intellectual property law, > the threshold differs depending on jurisdiction and subject matter. > Francis Indeed. Let's start getting specific. The threshold in the US is very low - which incidentally is where this "you can't copyright facts" stuff originated. What's the criteria in the EU? Do you know? 80n > For example when the threshold for computer programs was harmonised in > the European Union some (most) jurisdictions had to lower the bar > whereas we (may) have raised it. The same is probably true of > copyright in databases. > > That's one of the reasons why the turn of debate this thread has taken > is particularly sterile: different systems approach these questions in > entirely different ways and from fundamentally different philosophical > starting points. > > -- > Francis Davey > > ___ > 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] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> They're vector graphics. >> >> They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get >> rendered. > > Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered? Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form. Combined with some instructions and styling (i.e. draw a 3 pixel line along these vectors in red with rounded caps), it can be rendered into a visual form. Like an SVG file. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jamie Smith wrote: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers wrote: >>> On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote: I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more than *just* geographical data. >>> >>> I don't know what else they are. >> >> They're vector graphics. > > They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered. Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 5 August 2010 21:25, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > The test for copyrightability is some amount of creativity. Case law > suggests that this can be very minimal. Rather than looking for what is > factual and thus not copyrightable, let's look for what is. That's not correct across all systems of intellectual property law, the threshold differs depending on jurisdiction and subject matter. For example when the threshold for computer programs was harmonised in the European Union some (most) jurisdictions had to lower the bar whereas we (may) have raised it. The same is probably true of copyright in databases. That's one of the reasons why the turn of debate this thread has taken is particularly sterile: different systems approach these questions in entirely different ways and from fundamentally different philosophical starting points. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers wrote: >> On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> >>> I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more >>> than *just* geographical data. >> >> I don't know what else they are. > > They're vector graphics. They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more >> than *just* geographical data. > > I don't know what else they are. They're vector graphics. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
The test for copyrightability is some amount of creativity. Case law suggests that this can be very minimal. Rather than looking for what is factual and thus not copyrightable, let's look for what is. There are many things that meet the almost trivial threshold that legally constitutes creativity. Road classification, land use, abstraction, generalization, selectivity, arbitrary tagging, arrangement, smoothness, routes, desire paths, boundary approximation, building outlines, junction topology, address schema, layers, etc. All creative, all copyrightable. On 5 Aug 2010 21:03, "Rob Myers" wrote: On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but ... I don't know what else they are. >> The fact that the form is fixed on the hard drive is less important than >> that it's fixed as ... They are different forms. Different forms have different copyright protection, including none. > Accuracy would be maximized by using as many nodes as possible. Not if many are inaccurate. Outliers aren't just a book by Malcolm Gladwell. ;-) > That's not what's being done. Instead, the creator of the way is > selecting nodes which s/he f... True. But if the sorting is simply "sweat of the brow" then it's not eligible either. >> My point is that they are different fixed forms covered by different aspects >> of copyright la... They are. But only because both are forms that are explicitly covered by copyright law. A font program is a copyrighted work that describes an uncopyrightable (in the US) but more graphical design. A white pages web site may have a typographic, design and code copyrights but wont (under US law) have a database copyright. Copyright isn't just copyright, and a particular expression or element of something may or may not be copyrightable. (IANAL, TINLA.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 08/05/2010 05:09 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> And OSM is more than just geographical data. A way isn't geographical >> data. > > A way is geographical data. Or possibly geographical metadata. ;-) I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more than *just* geographical data. >> A database on a hard drive *is* in a fixed form. "Fixed" doesn't mean >> "can't be edited", at least not in the sense it's used in copyright >> law. > > Yes, this is why I mentioned dance notation. > > The fact that the form is fixed on the hard drive is less important than > that it's fixed as a database or as an image encoding. You don't get > synchronization rights on source code. Not sure what you're getting at. >> So you agree I'm *maybe* right, you're just not sure? Fine, I'll take it. > > I agree that you may be right about ways. I would not however stake OSM on > my opinion of this (which hasn't changed in some years) without legal > advice. Fair enough. I'm not asking you to. >> There is selection within a single way. What nodes to use to represent >> the way. > > That selection is for accuracy, not expression. Accuracy would be maximized by using as many nodes as possible. That's not what's being done. Instead, the creator of the way is selecting nodes which s/he feels best represents the way. It may not be expression in the sense of expressionist art, because the work is grounded in an attempt to reflect reality, but a work need not be expressionist to be eligible for copyright. >> No. There is no equivalent to Section 114 of the US code >> (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114) for geographical >> databases or cartographic images. > > My point is that they are different fixed forms covered by different aspects > of copyright law. Only because copyright law explicitly treats them differently. In any case, I'm not arguing with you that the copyright on an image is different from the copyright on a vector description of that image. I'm just saying that both are copyrighted. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 05:09 PM, Anthony wrote: And OSM is more than just geographical data. A way isn't geographical data. A way is geographical data. Or possibly geographical metadata. ;-) A database on a hard drive *is* in a fixed form. "Fixed" doesn't mean "can't be edited", at least not in the sense it's used in copyright law. Yes, this is why I mentioned dance notation. The fact that the form is fixed on the hard drive is less important than that it's fixed as a database or as an image encoding. You don't get synchronization rights on source code. So you agree I'm *maybe* right, you're just not sure? Fine, I'll take it. I agree that you may be right about ways. I would not however stake OSM on my opinion of this (which hasn't changed in some years) without legal advice. There is selection within a single way. What nodes to use to represent the way. That selection is for accuracy, not expression. No. There is no equivalent to Section 114 of the US code (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114) for geographical databases or cartographic images. My point is that they are different fixed forms covered by different aspects of copyright law. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Anthony wrote: > No. There is no equivalent to Section 114 of the US code > (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114) for geographical > databases or cartographic images. Title 17, of course. The reason "there are different laws and aspects of the law covering" scores and sound recordings is that Congress decided to make special laws about them. A closer analogy would be source code and binaries. Copyright law obviously covers both. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 08/05/2010 03:50 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> I say such a definition is not possible to create. > > Then why are you asking for one? Because I wanted to see which one you were talking about. 1, or 2, not both. > It is trivial to define geodata as geographical data in database form. A > rendered map isn't geodata because it isn't in database form. And OSM is more than just geographical data. A way isn't geographical data. >>> The fixed form is different. The fact that one is a database (that may >>> not >>> attract copyright) and the other a picture (that may be covered by >>> specific >>> map-related copyright) is legally as well as philosophically significant. >> >> And what's that difference? > > The fixed form. If you mean what is the significance, different forms have > different rights and coverage in copyright law (including none). A database on a hard drive *is* in a fixed form. "Fixed" doesn't mean "can't be edited", at least not in the sense it's used in copyright law. >> POIs, fine. Ways, which represent roads, no. A way is not merely an >> uncreative collection of facts. > > Yes, OSM is a stack or a layer cake. POIs - DB right. Ways - DB right and > *maybe* copyright. Maps - copyright. So you agree I'm *maybe* right, you're just not sure? Fine, I'll take it. >> There is selection, as to which facts >> to express, and there are even deviations from facts, when the pure >> facts wouldn't look right (consider the merging of two roads, for >> example). > > But there are no categories in the database like "fun roads to look for > cakes on" or "purple roads". The selections are determined by the externally > defined criteria for categorising and naming roads. There is selection within a single way. What nodes to use to represent the way. >>> Consider a written musical score and a recording of a performance of that >>> score. The score is not the performance, and there are different laws and >>> aspects of the law covering the two fixed forms. >> >> And both are subject to copyright law. Good analogy. > > Given that it's a good analogy, I assume my point that the two are regarded > as different forms with different degrees and extents of rights by copyright > law has some bearing on the relationship between geographical databases and > cartographic images? No. There is no equivalent to Section 114 of the US code (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114) for geographical databases or cartographic images. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 04:17 PM, Anthony wrote: Bottom line is it doesn't matter. Even if I broke the rules of OSM while creating it, I'm still entitled to the copyright on my work. If you are entitled to copyright. The point of the "breaking the rules" is that the creativity/originality that "breaking the rules" involves may be the only way to qualify for copyright. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 03:50 PM, Anthony wrote: I say such a definition is not possible to create. Then why are you asking for one? It is trivial to define geodata as geographical data in database form. A rendered map isn't geodata because it isn't in database form. The fixed form is different. The fact that one is a database (that may not attract copyright) and the other a picture (that may be covered by specific map-related copyright) is legally as well as philosophically significant. And what's that difference? The fixed form. If you mean what is the significance, different forms have different rights and coverage in copyright law (including none). If I create a map in Photoshop, is there copyright on the picture, but not the file used to create that picture? It's no different if I create a map in Mapnik. It is different because the Photoshop file is simply an encoding of the image. The OSM database is not simply an encoding of the artistic versions of the rendered maps that you can find online. Font files are always carefully structured and referred to as programs in the US. This is because typographic designs cannot be copyrighted in the US but (since the late 1970s), programs can. Then there's dance notation... POIs, fine. Ways, which represent roads, no. A way is not merely an uncreative collection of facts. Yes, OSM is a stack or a layer cake. POIs - DB right. Ways - DB right and *maybe* copyright. Maps - copyright. There is selection, as to which facts to express, and there are even deviations from facts, when the pure facts wouldn't look right (consider the merging of two roads, for example). But there are no categories in the database like "fun roads to look for cakes on" or "purple roads". The selections are determined by the externally defined criteria for categorising and naming roads. Consider a written musical score and a recording of a performance of that score. The score is not the performance, and there are different laws and aspects of the law covering the two fixed forms. And both are subject to copyright law. Good analogy. Given that it's a good analogy, I assume my point that the two are regarded as different forms with different degrees and extents of rights by copyright law has some bearing on the relationship between geographical databases and cartographic images? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 6 August 2010 01:02, Anthony wrote: >> Call it "mapping for the renderer" if you want. Call it a violation >> of the rules of OSM. But that's a copyrightable work. > > So would any use of the smoothness tagging and any other subjective > tagging for that matter... Bottom line is it doesn't matter. Even if I broke the rules of OSM while creating it, I'm still entitled to the copyright on my work. That means no, Google can't copy it without licensing the derivatives under CC-BY-SA (*), and it means when OSM switches to ODbL, they get to revert it back to the old TIGER ways which don't even reflect the new construction. (*) And really why would they want to? It's much easier for them, from both a technical and a legal perspective, to simply create their own geometries from scratch. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:
On 5 August 2010 16:07, John Smith wrote: > On 6 August 2010 01:01, David Groom wrote: > > Now John Smith in his statement above says "almost nothing except CC0 and > PD > > data is compatible with the new contributor terms". Lets take CC0 data, > > there is still a rights holder of the data, who has released the data > under > > CC0. I would contend I have an IMPLICIT permission, to use the data in > OSM, > > I would also contend I have "permission" to use the data in OSM, what I > am > > unsure about is that I have "EXPLICIT permission". > > If data is truly PD, there is no owner, so there is no one to get > explicit permission from. > > In any case my point was about the wording to do with "another free or > open license" being too ambiguous. > > Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France, where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your rights. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:
David Groom wrote: > personally I'm still waiting for a reply to the question I asked on > this list on 20 July entitled "Query over Contributor Terms". Just as a reminder, the address of the Licensing Working Group is not legal-talk@openstreetmap.org . :) If you have a 'blocker'-type issue and the varied opinions advanced on this list don't resolve it to your satisfaction, you should ask LWG directly and/or suggest a better option to them. As previously posted I have suggested a modification to CT in private mail to them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5376907.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] decision removing data
On 6 August 2010 01:02, Anthony wrote: > Call it "mapping for the renderer" if you want. Call it a violation > of the rules of OSM. But that's a copyrightable work. So would any use of the smoothness tagging and any other subjective tagging for that matter... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:
On 6 August 2010 01:01, David Groom wrote: > Now John Smith in his statement above says "almost nothing except CC0 and PD > data is compatible with the new contributor terms". Lets take CC0 data, > there is still a rights holder of the data, who has released the data under > CC0. I would contend I have an IMPLICIT permission, to use the data in OSM, > I would also contend I have "permission" to use the data in OSM, what I am > unsure about is that I have "EXPLICIT permission". If data is truly PD, there is no owner, so there is no one to get explicit permission from. In any case my point was about the wording to do with "another free or open license" being too ambiguous. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Anthony wrote: > A way is not merely an > uncreative collection of facts. There is selection, as to which facts > to express, and there are even deviations from facts, when the pure > facts wouldn't look right (consider the merging of two roads, for > example). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.959666&lon=-82.53844&zoom=18&layers=M There were quite a lot of creative choices that went into the making of that work. Take a look at the GPS traces, and how the ways don't exactly match them. Take a look at the split of the road, and how that was chosen to give the proper look while remaining true to reality. Look at the selection of where to put a bridge and where not to put a bridge, a very subjective decision in this sort of instance. Yes, there was a lot of sweat of the brow put into the creation of that map, but there was a lot of creativity and originality as well, and I'm not talking solely about the creativity or originality of the people who wrote Mapnik. Call it "mapping for the renderer" if you want. Call it a violation of the rules of OSM. But that's a copyrightable work. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:
- Original Message - From: "John Smith" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data [snip] The reason for the data loss is as Frederik wrote, CC-by-SA isn't believed to be compatible with ODBL, and almost nothing except CC0 and PD data is compatible with the new contributor terms, personally I'm still waiting for a reply to the question I asked on this list on 20 July entitled "Query over Contributor Terms". To avoid you having to do back and look, the point I was asking is as follows: The last line of paragraph 1 of the contributors terms states "You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents.". It is the use of the word "explicit" worries me. The sentence in which that phrase is contained would still make sense if the word "explicit" were removed. Therefore I conclude that the inclusion of the word explicit is important and deliberate. To me the phrase "explicit permission" would indicate that the rights holder would have to state something along the lines of "I give David Groom permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap" . Now John Smith in his statement above says "almost nothing except CC0 and PD data is compatible with the new contributor terms". Lets take CC0 data, there is still a rights holder of the data, who has released the data under CC0. I would contend I have an IMPLICIT permission, to use the data in OSM, I would also contend I have "permission" to use the data in OSM, what I am unsure about is that I have "EXPLICIT permission". At the moment I remain to be convinced I have "EXPLICIT permission", no one has tried to argue otherwise, and so currently I would find myself in the position of being unable to agree something along the lines of the CT terms which new users are asked to sign up to, to cover edits I have already made. Note that I believe the same argument could be made for PD data, as technically there is still a rights holder, who released the data into PD. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to be difficult, just that the inclusion of the word "explicit" in the CT obviously is deliberate, in that the sentence still works without it, so its inclusion must be there for a reason. David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> Still waiting for that definition of geodata. > > It's a contraction of "geographical data". I didn't ask for an expanded form, I asked for a definition. If you'd like to be tricky, you can even try to construct a definition backwards from the two factors you are trying to achieve. 1) A collection of geodata is never copyrightable; and 2) OSM is nothing but a collection of geodata. I say such a definition is not possible to create. >> Just because the map is >> in digitized vector format doesn't mean it's not a digital version of >> a visual work of cartography. > > The fixed form is different. The fact that one is a database (that may not > attract copyright) and the other a picture (that may be covered by specific > map-related copyright) is legally as well as philosophically significant. And what's that difference? If I create a map in Photoshop, is there copyright on the picture, but not the file used to create that picture? It's no different if I create a map in Mapnik. POIs, fine. Ways, which represent roads, no. A way is not merely an uncreative collection of facts. There is selection, as to which facts to express, and there are even deviations from facts, when the pure facts wouldn't look right (consider the merging of two roads, for example). > Consider a written musical score and a recording of a performance of that > score. The score is not the performance, and there are different laws and > aspects of the law covering the two fixed forms. And both are subject to copyright law. Good analogy. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote: Still waiting for that definition of geodata. It's a contraction of "geographical data". Just because the map is in digitized vector format doesn't mean it's not a digital version of a visual work of cartography. The fixed form is different. The fact that one is a database (that may not attract copyright) and the other a picture (that may be covered by specific map-related copyright) is legally as well as philosophically significant. Consider a written musical score and a recording of a performance of that score. The score is not the performance, and there are different laws and aspects of the law covering the two fixed forms. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 08/05/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> The idea >> that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when you consider >> that. > > Nobody has said that it doesn't. > > The point is that Geodata is not a visual work of cartography. Still waiting for that definition of geodata. Just because the map is in digitized vector format doesn't mean it's not a digital version of a visual work of cartography. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 03:07 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers wrote: On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote: I don't see that's different from any other drawing, in digital form. It depends how creative/original it is. No it doesn't. It depends whether or not it crosses the threshold of having a minimal amount of creativity/originality. http://ur1.ca/10dea - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote: The idea that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when you consider that. Nobody has said that it doesn't. The point is that Geodata is not a visual work of cartography. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> I don't see that's different from any other drawing, >> in digital form. > > It depends how creative/original it is. No it doesn't. It depends whether or not it crosses the threshold of having a minimal amount of creativity/originality. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 02:17 PM, John Smith wrote: On 5 August 2010 22:33, Rob Myers wrote: The conversation we had recently on this list indicated that three years from after the next Australian election would be the minimum timescale. That's assuming they actually have a desire or reason to change... Otherwise it could take a few election cycles... Sure, hence "minimum". :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote: I don't see that's different from any other drawing, in digital form. It depends how creative/original it is. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 5 August 2010 22:44, SteveC wrote: > Oh and BTW this exact dragging on is why I suggested we bound the problem by > signing up new users - so the problem doesn't grow every day with more and > more people. But that has it's own issues, now any new users are limited as to what data sources they can use, even if those data sources are ODBL compatible. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC wrote: > I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a > significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward. I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous wording for the new CTs that makes a lot of the current data incompatible... At least plant the blame on those trying to push through PD onto everyone else, you seem to be pro-SA so why are others getting more of a say in this? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 5 August 2010 23:12, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I am, however, sure that any legal case involving infringement of OSM data > in Australia would be judged following IceTV vs Nine Network and Telstra vs > Phone Directories, rather than following any licence which the legislature > might or might not have chosen to apply for its data. Telstra is still contending this ruling and it won't be fully settled till some time next year, in the mean time they're trying to get more support for their position while telling everyone it is in the best interest of the community blah blah ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the > notion that copyright can protect collections of unoriginal facts. These are > IceTV vs Nine Network (last year) and Telstra vs Phone Directories (this > year). These effectively supersede the 2002 Telstra vs Desktop Marketing > Systems judgement which did support sweat-of-the-brow for databases. > > A licence which only works through copyright (such as CC-BY-SA) will > therefore offer little or no protection in Australia, compared to one which > also includes a contractual element (such as ODbL). What makes you think that contractual element will offer any "protection" in Australia? Has an Australian court case upheld the enforcement of contractual restriction on people who didn't even know the contract existed? And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts? That part of the argument is rather obviously untrue. OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts about as much as Wikipedia is. Which is to say, sure, it *contains* a collection of unoriginal facts, but it expresses those facts in a unique way. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 5 August 2010 22:33, Rob Myers wrote: > The conversation we had recently on this list indicated that three years > from after the next Australian election would be the minimum timescale. That's assuming they actually have a desire or reason to change... Otherwise it could take a few election cycles... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:25 AM, John Smith wrote: > You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything > but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who > think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new "freer" > data back in and we'll be able to then license under the most freest > license possible so there is no restrictions at all on anything ever > again. So why can't the latter camp just start a new project from scratch? They'd probably have caught up by now. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Liz wrote: > As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than > ODbL, > as it has been well checked and has government use. No. It isn't that simple. Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the notion that copyright can protect collections of unoriginal facts. These are IceTV vs Nine Network (last year) and Telstra vs Phone Directories (this year). These effectively supersede the 2002 Telstra vs Desktop Marketing Systems judgement which did support sweat-of-the-brow for databases. A licence which only works through copyright (such as CC-BY-SA) will therefore offer little or no protection in Australia, compared to one which also includes a contractual element (such as ODbL). Whether or not the Australian Government took this into account when releasing public information, I have no idea. (Factual data only makes up a small part of their CC-licensed release.) I am, however, sure that any legal case involving infringement of OSM data in Australia would be judged following IceTV vs Nine Network and Telstra vs Phone Directories, rather than following any licence which the legislature might or might not have chosen to apply for its data. > I have not changed my mind, as you still will have changed the licence > by stealth and creep. I have suggested to LWG that the "licence may be changed in the future" clause in CT is withdrawn. That notwithstanding I don't see any widespread intention to change the licence by stealth and creep. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5376400.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] decision removing data
On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:43 AM, SteveC wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC wrote: >>> This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off >>> everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're >>> not meeting the deadline. >> >> Regardless I've communicated with some older contributors in recent >> times that flat out refuse to do anything with OSM until the license >> is sorted out because they're worried that their contributions will >> ultimately be a waste of time, the longer this goes on the increasing >> number of people are going to be hesitant about contributing... > > I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a > significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward. Oh and BTW this exact dragging on is why I suggested we bound the problem by signing up new users - so the problem doesn't grow every day with more and more people. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC wrote: >> This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off >> everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're >> not meeting the deadline. > > Regardless I've communicated with some older contributors in recent > times that flat out refuse to do anything with OSM until the license > is sorted out because they're worried that their contributions will > ultimately be a waste of time, the longer this goes on the increasing > number of people are going to be hesitant about contributing... I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 12:11 PM, John Smith wrote: On 5 August 2010 21:02, Grant Slater wrote: On 4 August 2010 22:25, Liz wrote: As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as it has been well checked and has government use. In other jurisdictions the matter is different. [citation needed] I can only assume she meant "better" in the sense that various Australian governments have gotten their lawyers to evaluated cc licenses and actually published data under it, it took a lot of time and effort from various parties to get the government to open up data that much, all bets are off as to how long it would take to get data under a different open license, let alone something as specific as ODBL... The conversation we had recently on this list indicated that three years from after the next Australian election would be the minimum timescale. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 5 August 2010 21:02, Grant Slater wrote: > On 4 August 2010 22:25, Liz wrote: >> As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, >> as >> it has been well checked and has government use. >> In other jurisdictions the matter is different. >> > > [citation needed] I can only assume she meant "better" in the sense that various Australian governments have gotten their lawyers to evaluated cc licenses and actually published data under it, it took a lot of time and effort from various parties to get the government to open up data that much, all bets are off as to how long it would take to get data under a different open license, let alone something as specific as ODBL... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 4 August 2010 22:25, Liz wrote: > As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as > it has been well checked and has government use. > In other jurisdictions the matter is different. > [citation needed] / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 08/05/2010 05:30 AM, John Smith wrote: Regardless I've communicated with some older contributors in recent times that flat out refuse to do anything with OSM until the license is sorted out because they're worried that their contributions will ultimately be a waste of time, the longer this goes on the increasing number of people are going to be hesitant about contributing... Can people please decide whether it's bad that the licence transition is taking so long or it's bad that it's being rushed. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Heiko Jacobs wrote: > Which copyright is relevant for edits in XY besides CC? Sorry, I don't follow what you mean by "besides CC". Creative Commons is not a special type of copyright, it's a licence. > National copyright law of XY? Or copyright law of GB (OSMF, > server)? I would guess ;-) first one? Copyright in the edits, _where_such_copyright_exists_, is held by the mapper. In the event of a mapper wanting to sue over licence infringement, it would be up to the mapper to decide in which jurisdiction to sue. This is likely to be either the jurisdiction where the mapper resides, or where the alleged infringement took place. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5375928.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] decision removing data
John Smith schrieb: On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs wrote: I don't want youre private guesses. I want to have official facts. Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only going to get guesses. As you weight in the court ... They also will ask for "OSMF decided", not for "Frederik guessed" ... As you weight in the court ... Which copyright is relevant for edits in XY besides CC? National copyright law of XY? Or copyright law of GB (OSMF, server)? I would guess ;-) first one? Because all talk about differences of protection of data between USA, GB, Germany, Australia, ... What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too? The reason for the data loss is as Frederik wrote, And where I can find, that OSMF follows Frederiks opinion? ;-) A lot of things around the point of data loss are very absurd, indeed ... You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new "freer" data back in and we'll be able to then license under the most freest license possible so there is no restrictions at all on anything ever again. Yes I'm a member of the first camp ;-) But I would also say, it is an idealistic camp, too. I'm an idealist with the opinion, that all will work together to make the data better for a better world ;-) and not want to go back some years to old bad geometry and old bad tags only to obey some mappers, that are unreachable ... To put errors in a map to have fun while closing the gaps again is not an idealistic point of view for me ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs wrote: > I don't want youre private guesses. > I want to have official facts. Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only going to get guesses. > What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too? The reason for the data loss is as Frederik wrote, CC-by-SA isn't believed to be compatible with ODBL, and almost nothing except CC0 and PD data is compatible with the new contributor terms, so unless people give permission to relicense under ODBL their data would have to be excluded. Although the whole point of the license change is because people believe cc-by-sa isn't valid for GIS data so it's almost contradicting to exclude data that isn't protected by copyright... > You use absurd examples do draw off the attention from > well-founded, but unanwsered questions. Without actual court cases this is the best anyone can do, and it's for this reason some believe CC-by-SA is good enough because the absurd examples haven't come true. > A lot of things around the point of data loss are very absurd, indeed ... You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new "freer" data back in and we'll be able to then license under the most freest license possible so there is no restrictions at all on anything ever again. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Heiko, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data? Because. as I explained to you yesterday, CC-BY-SA does not allow redistribution of data under a different license; so once the data is distributed under ODbL, anything that is CC-BY-SA and not relicensed has to be removed. I don't want youre private guesses. I want to have official facts. For such an important thing, for my opinion every mapper has the right to read a document where the reasons of the loss of data are well documented to analyze and understand it for it's own decisions. Thousands of words are already written down to declare, why the change of licence is necessary and why the new licence is better than the old one. Thanks for that to everyone who write this. What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too? If we forgot the official reasons or if they had no worth to write them down then we should also simply forget to remove any data ... ;-) Next thing you request to see the board meeting minutes that give the reason why we're not allowed to copy from Google, OSM has not to decide wether Google allows copying or not. So I can't ask it. You use absurd examples do draw off the attention from well-founded, but unanwsered questions. That's absurd, and you're making a clown of yourself by repeating your question every two days. A lot of things around the point of data loss are very absurd, indeed ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
