Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Liz]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
> Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative
> works.  It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and
> information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing.  If you believe
> strongly in  pandemic virality, then it is a good thing.  If you believe
> that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more
> constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why
> most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal
> is disseminating data we collect ourselves.


alternate conclusion, 

If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, 
then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary.

If you believe that the data should be completely freely available then 
neither ODBL nor CC-by-SA is appropriate, and a CC0 licence should be 
considered.

If your major concern is that improvements to the data should be fed back into 
the common pool of data, then CC-by or CC-by-SA would be suitable (and maybe 
others)

Please leave out very emotive language like "dangerous" and unproven 
assertions like "most of us" without defining "us". I realise that it was 
headed "personal conclusion".

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Mike Collinson]

At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom 
><revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or 
>CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general 
>permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use in 
>OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I have 
>permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT permission 
>to do so.
>
>
>David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the 
>Contributor Terms.  If you have added content that is licensed under CC-BY-SA 
>you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms.  
>
>I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is 
>compatible with OBdL and CT.  It is not.

I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins"  to legal 
talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our 
Australian community.  I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred 
vehicle for releasing government data.  I am inclined to agree with 80n, though 
in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too potentially broad in 
their virality. I present this for the purposes of discussion and do not see my 
conclusions as immutable. I focus on Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a 
consideration.

I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last of 
NearMap of Australia (http://www.nearmap.com).  They allow use of  their 
PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative Commons 
Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most cordial and 
helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from their own 
perspective.  I hope they will share some of the conclusions they reach, both 
for the perspective and the authoritative opinion.

--

To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this:

Write a word processor  --X-->  Write a book with the software.

Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS 
possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book.  But if the 
software is improved to write the book and software is published, then software 
improvements must be available Share Alike.

ODbL is slightly stronger:

Create map data --X--> Make a map

Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in 
reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible 
data to make the map under certain conditions.  But if the data is improved and 
the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be available 
Share Alike.

But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus can 
potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original publisher 
feels they want to exert(?).

Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community:

Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA  -> Create map data with some imagery tracing 
-> Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map; ...

ODbL breaks the chain at the second "->", either because the extract is not 
substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA does 
not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?).

Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative works.  
It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and information, and 
if it is, it is vague and confusing.  If you believe strongly in  pandemic 
virality, then it is a good thing.  If you believe that all the chain of 
Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just 
dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from 
it as our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect 
ourselves.

Mike


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Francis Davey  wrote:

> On 6 August 2010 19:42, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What's the criteria in the EU?  Do you know?
> >> >
> >>
> >> "own intellectual creation"
> >>
> >> Article 3(1) of 96/9/EC:
> >>
> >> "1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of
> >> the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the
> >> author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by
> >> copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their
> >> eligibility for that protection."
> >>
> > I was actually asking about the criteria for traditional copyright not
> > database rights.  However the reference above is interesting in that it
>
> That is the criterion for traditional copyright and not database
> rights. The Database Directive actually did two things:
>
> Can you confirm my understanding if this.  Copyright protection is based on
the existence of an author's intellectual creation resulting from selection
or arrangement.  Correct?

Can you give examples to make this clearer?



> (1) it harmonised the threshold criterion for *copyright* in databases
> (see above)
>
> (2) it created a new "database right", the threshold for which you
> will find in article 7(1):
>
> "1. Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a
> database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or
> quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining,
> verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction
> and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated
> qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that
> database."
>
> In other words there has to be "substantial investment" in one of: (i)
> obtaining; (ii) verification or (iii) presentation, where that
> substantial investment could be quantitative or qualitative.
>

 

>  ... The "Fixtures Marketing" cases being
> particularly relevant:
>
> http://www.out-law.com/page-5055
>
> These cases appear to indicate that, *excluding* the investment in creation
of the content, substantial investment is required to obtain, verify and
present the content, before a database right is earned.

If OSMF were to claim a database right, how would they demonstrate
substantial investment?  It's difficult to see how that could be a financial
investment.  What form could such an investment take?

80n






> --
> 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] OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms (was : decision removing data:

[Michael Collinson]

At 01:14 13/08/2010, Liz wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
> At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> >PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
> >review from OSMF's lawyers...
>
> Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with
> what is now the summary [1]  but they were re-written professionally ...
> and came back, well, much longer.  We then worked compressing it to the
> minimum and had each small change explicitly reviewed. A number of changes
> were also proposed by kind folks on this list and were subjected to the
> same review.
>
> Mike
>
> [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary
>

the output you get from a lawyer is dependent on the input
so you ask a question and the lawyer answers that question.

we can't decide anything  about the lawyer's contributions unless we 
know what

the original questions were.



Drafts are available at 
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes . Look for 
"Licensing Working Group, Contributor Terms (working document, not a 
final version)"


However as you are only seeing the last revision per physical 
document, the earliest appears to be draft 11 ... so does not 
directly answer the question you are asking.


I will dig out the earliest draft I can find in history diffs and 
publish as a separate document.


Note also that we originally intended a very short version that 
pointed to (drafts of) Database Contents License (DbCL) . You can see 
the later v1.0 version at 
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ and that there is a 
high correspondence of phraseology.


Mike 



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