Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
davespod writes: > Jukka Rahkonen writes: > > >I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are > > effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways > > tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not > > copyrightable. > > Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the > > moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts. > > When we signed up to OSM, we agreed: > > "By creating an account, you agree that all work uploaded to > openstreetmap.org and all data created by use of any tools which connect to > openstreetmap.org is to be (non-exclusively) licensed under this Creative > Commons license (by-sa)" > > Surely this includes GPS tracks? It is clearly said and you must be right. I was just remembering how tracks were used in the early days. There were two alternatives for gpx files, either mark them as "public" or "private". For editors it did not make big difference because all that the user could see on the screen was anonymous GPS track points. Now I can see that it is possible to connect GPS track points with the creator of the gpx file if it is set as "Identifiable" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Visibility_of_GPS_traces). I suppose that we haven't often even tried to apply BY-SA for tracing from GPS track logs but only SA. The user just happily estimates some good average location from a seemingly anonymous GPS point cloud and the end result, the first version of a new OSM way gets marked as an original work done by that user, not as an derivative work based on a bunch of gpx files from various other user. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and duration of IP protection
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely > to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you > *will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current > than OSM and has less restrictions. Nobody will be interested in > x-year-old lapsed OSM data then. So I think this problem is of > theoretical nature. I’m glad you say “most”, because we do (or did, at least before OS OpenData sources became available) have a habit of jumping on old Ordnance Survey maps in the UK because the data they represent is still useful. There are also a number of people in the community interested in historical mapping, so who is to say someone will not find x-year-old OSM data useful? 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] [OSM-talk] I don't want companies stealing OSM data that I contribute!
Hi,
Emilie Laffray wrote:
While I am not a legal expert, I will try to answer that one.
Companies can already make money from OpenStreetMap: there are plenty of
examples around (Skobbler, Cloudmade, Geofabrik, etc). There is
nothing preventing a company from using the data. However, they are
bound to make their data available.
People often claim that "I do not want somebody to make money from OSM
and give nothing back."
I would like to point out that there are a number of perfectly legal
ways, today, of making money from OSM and giving nothing back. A very
simple example would be a large organisation with many sales
representatives, where the organisation issues OSM maps to the sales
reps instead of buying from Garmin. That can easily give them five-digit
yearly savings, and nothing is "given back".
They can also start building something on top of OSM, e.g. add their own
POIs to the map, or hack the TomTom map file format to be able to
generate TomTom maps from OSM - all without "giving back".
You can, today, legally, couple OSM data with software you sell ("buy
AutoNav 1.0 with free OSM data"). Of course the data can be copied under
CC-BY-SA but why would anybody copy it since anyone who has the software
to read it also has the data. Then you offer a data update, but sadly
(due to added features) that update only works with AutoNav 1.1 which
you have to buy for 5$ extra. Of course the update is free but...
And, of course, if you are in a country where CC-BY-SA doesn't work then
you can just completely ignore CC-BY-SA and produce dreived works to
your heart's content without giving anything to anybody.
Bye
Frederik
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I don't want companies stealing OSM data that I contribute!
(moving this thread to legal-talk) Valent: AFAIK with new Contributor Terms [1] all data entered into OSM can be taken by some company, closed and they could create a product made profit on it. Grant: No, they have to make the data available. The data is share-alike. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ Felix: Nope, they don't have to. Only if they use it as one database. If they use it to publish maps, or create a product that afterwards uses two databases seperately, they don't have to publish their own data under Odbl. Grant is right in saying that they have to make the *data* available - not the end product but any OSM-derived database they create in the process. For the data, this is a *stricter* requirement than CC-BY-SA has (which requires you to make the end product available and not the data). Also, Felix is right in claiming that if you manage to create a product by using two separate databases, one OSM and one not, you do not have to release the "not-OSM" database. This is the same as with CC-BY-SA, which does not require you to release *any* of the two databases. While CC-BY-SA forces you to release the final product, anything that can be done by "using two databases separately" is very likely to be doable using the multi-layer technique we use today when we take OSM maps and overlay proprietary data - even today that does not make the proprietary data CC-BY-SA. So I fail to see where exactly the sudden outcry comes from. This has some positive sides, i.e. you could use CCBYNC data inside a map (which is a product) whithout that data loosing its NC status, on the other hand basically anyone can do whatever he wants now with OSM data, whithout giving a penny back. For me this is unacceptable and I won't agree to the new license, and also tell other people to stay far away from odbl. Whoever makes a finished product from OSM data has the choice of license for that finished product. It could be CC-BY-SA (if you like that), or if you don't like commercial users you can license it CC-BY-SA-NC (a liberty that nobody who creates stuff from OSM has at the moment). Or it could be a commercial copyright license - which will only hold if your product really adds that much value, otherwise, since the raw OSM data is available openly, anyone else can come and make the same product at a lower price, or for free. For me Odbl means that the quest for free data has failed, if you push Odbl license, you push data that is incompatible to CCBYSA terms as we know them. ODbL clearly is a free and open license (whereas, for example, the CC-BY-SA-NC is clearly not). I don't know if your personal quest has failed but it cannot have been a quest for free data. You are mixing up the data (which will always remain free under ODbL, and even under stricter rules as before), and stuff produced from data (which in many cases will *not* be data!). OSM is a project about free geodata, and ODbL serves that purpose well - much better than CC-BY-SA. OSM never was a project about "free creative works produced from geodata", and thus, CC-BY-SA was the wrong license from day one - it just took us 6 years to notice. That what we do now to fix this is "incompatible to CC-BY-SA terms as we know them" should not come as a surprise; after all, CC-BY-SA is about creative works and we are not. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I don't want companies stealing OSM data that I contribute!
On 08/19/2010 02:34 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Please don't refer to something as "stealing" where it's not a process of the previous owner unrightfully losing something and not having access to it any more. Unless it's stealing someone's idea, stealing a kiss, stealing cable television, stealing second base, stealing the show, stealing the election, or stealing a peek. And stealing someone's heart is clearly murder. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and duration of IP protection
On 19 August 2010 18:13, Simon Ward wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely >> to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you >> *will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current >> than OSM and has less restrictions. Nobody will be interested in >> x-year-old lapsed OSM data then. So I think this problem is of >> theoretical nature. > > I’m glad you say “most”, because we do (or did, at least before OS > OpenData sources became available) have a habit of jumping on old > Ordnance Survey maps in the UK because the data they represent is still > useful. +1 on both points, same thing in Australia a lot of older small towns haven't changed much in 100 years and out of copyright parish maps (where we could get them) have been used in a similar way. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
I'm some what concerned how easy it is with potlatch for new users to activate the Nearmap layer and there is no warning that they would be in breach of Nearmap terms as a result of agreeing to the CTs. Already there has been a thread on the talk-au list about new contributors that have done this, should their contributions be reverted or should they be able to unagree to the CTs? In any case going forward unless something changes with the CTs many many many more people will be effected by this, does the OSM APIs have the ability to indicate if the account has agreed to the CTs and then update editors to prevent certain layers from being shown. Obviously this wouldn't prevent anyone with enough determination in using Nearmap or any other source of data which would be in conflict with the CTs but it would help newbies from making innocent mistakes... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
Moving to legal-talk Ben in future please post here. On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > It is not only about NearMap, we have tens of goverment sources which > requires attribution. > > It *is* talk list issue. It is about future of the project. Not yet it isn't. NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license, but the point is that we need to do something going forward which will be on average better for everyone. It won't be perfect. Therefore we have to make compromises. NearMap have some valid things they pointed out might make the CT's better. The LWG has had approximately 12 hours (from memory) to look at them, and for all we know might think they're awesome and change. Maybe not. We don't know. That's not the same thing as "oh my god we should do whatever NearMap want us to do". Therefore it's a discussion about the points in the CT's, which may or may not be changed. Not just "do whatever NearMap says". I think a much better position from NearMap would be to compromise on the data already in. Say, yes the data already derived can be used under the CT's. Then work with the LWG to fix the issues they see. You can't really put "it's not our place as a company to try and direct or influence the direction of OSM." at the end of an email which is all about trying to direct and influence the directions of the LWG and OSM and expect to be taken seriously. I'd be more honest and say, yes, we do want to change the direction so that it suits our business better. Because that's the reality as I see it. And it's not really that bad. I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word of the license. We can debate for the next millennia the meaning of a "future free and open license" under the specific wording of what that might mean. These are open issues that will take a long time, possibly a lot longer than the ODbL process to figure out. I don't think we're going to get anywhere bouncing between people who want everything to be PD (like USGS) and folks who want it to be some variant of attribution-sharealike and possibly NC (NearMap). We need to move forward in the spirit of compromise on to something which every rational person I know thinks is the best step forward - the ODbL. The other way of cooling this off is to not see the ODbL as the final step. I don't think it was intended to be. Once that's in place, then the field is open to discuss the next steps. Finally, I think the most honest step forward for NearMap and us unless they show some compromise on things like past data is to just shut it off. Believe me, there are a lot of other aerial imagery options being pursued hard and NearMap aren't the be all and end all. If they don't want to play ball and want to place restrictions on OSM, lets just work on alternatives. Steve stevecoast.com > > Cheers, > Peter. > > 2010/8/19 Brad Neuhauser : >> If it's about NearMap, then talk-au seems more appropriate. >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Anthony wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: this discussion must move to legal-talk. >>> >>> If we don't change the contributor terms, then we lose NearMap. >>> >>> That's not a legal discussion. >>> >>> ___ >>> talk mailing list >>> t...@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> t...@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > > -- > mortigi tempo > Pēteris Krišjānis > > ___ > 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] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 1:56 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 20 August 2010 05:23, SteveC wrote: >> I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word of >> the license. We can debate for the next millennia the meaning of a "future >> free and open license" under the specific wording of what that might mean. >> These are open issues that will take a long time, possibly a lot longer than >> the ODbL process to figure out. > > You were doing so well until this point, Nearmap's lawyers made those > comments. Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it? >> I don't think we're going to get anywhere bouncing between people who want >> everything to be PD (like USGS) and folks who want it to be some variant of >> attribution-sharealike and possibly NC (NearMap). > > Where/when did Nearmap mention NC? In their original email. I wasn't quite sure of the context, thus I wrote "possibly". >> The other way of cooling this off is to not see the ODbL as the final step. >> I don't think it was intended to be. Once that's in place, then the field is >> open to discuss the next steps. > > Most disagreement seems to be over CT not ODBL, but they're being sold > to us as a package deal, even Nearmap indicated they may not have a > problem with ODBL... Yes, in this case "ODbL" I take to mean shorthand for the whole process, the CT's and so on. >> Finally, I think the most honest step forward for NearMap and us unless they >> show some compromise on things like past data is to just shut it off. >> Believe me, there are a lot of other aerial imagery options being pursued >> hard and NearMap aren't the be all and end all. If they don't want to play >> ball and want to place restrictions on OSM, lets just work on alternatives. > > Personally I don't think Nearmap is being unreasonable, I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I don't personally feel is very cool. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
JohnSmitty wrote: > > In any case going forward unless something changes with the CTs many > many many more people will be effected by this, does the OSM APIs have > the ability to indicate if the account has agreed to the CTs and then > update editors to prevent certain layers from being shown. > > Obviously this wouldn't prevent anyone with enough determination in > using Nearmap or any other source of data which would be in conflict > with the CTs but it would help newbies from making innocent > mistakes... > A very similar mater appears to arise in a slightly different context. Let's for the moment assume that the ODbL and CT were compatible with CC-BY (like Ordnance Survey StreetView), NearMap and other attribution licenses that have been used and thus can in general remain in Potlatch, Josm and the other editiors. That however does still leave the substantial portion of mappers who have ticked the "I declare my edits to be PD" option, which surely makes them no longer compatible with these sources. These mappers therefore then presumably can not use those sources without being in breach of contract or license. So it seems editors will need to keep track of background image licenses anyway and with what they are compatible in order to warn or prevent the user in an adequate way. Luckily, the user details API call has recently received an update to include the information of if users have accepted the CT and if they declared their edits PD. Which means editors can be updated so that they only display the options compatible with the users current choice of license. But yes, I think editors should be updated as soon as possible as to not easily trap newbies and those mappers who don't want to be concerned with legal matters into doing something illegal. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-New-contributors-and-some-data-sources-are-not-allowed-under-the-CTs-but-too-easy-to--tp5441594p5441934.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] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
John Smith writes: > Already there has been a thread on the talk-au list about new > contributors that have done this, should their contributions be > reverted or should they be able to unagree to the CTs? I, for one, would like the possibility to be able to "unagree" to the CTs without having to recreate an account. Thanks, -- Rémi ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC wrote: > Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it? The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the same answers... > In their original email. I wasn't quite sure of the context, thus I wrote > "possibly". I don't recall seeing it, but it would seem strange position to take since OSM data is used commercially by themselves... >>> Finally, I think the most honest step forward for NearMap and us unless >>> they show some compromise on things like past data is to just shut it off. >>> Believe me, there are a lot of other aerial imagery options being pursued >>> hard and NearMap aren't the be all and end all. If they don't want to play >>> ball and want to place restrictions on OSM, lets just work on alternatives. >> >> Personally I don't think Nearmap is being unreasonable, > > I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points > to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I > don't personally feel is very cool. I don't think the CTs holding us hostage to possible but others keep telling me are unlikely futures is reasonable... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:30 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC wrote: >> Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it? > > The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the > same answers... Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I think we're all at fault here because when NearMap images became availalbe > for tracing, the whole license change process was already in motion and the This is a symptom of a much larger problem in OSM, I wasted time asking for an opinion on the legal list in the past about stuff to do and all I got was conflicting opinions, no one can get a straight answer on simple things, and when it comes to much bigger issues all hell breaks loose. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
Hi, Kai Krueger wrote: That however does still leave the substantial portion of mappers who have ticked the "I declare my edits to be PD" option, which surely makes them no longer compatible with these sources. These mappers therefore then presumably can not use those sources without being in breach of contract or license. Dunno - according to your logic, a mapper who declares his edits PD would not be allowed to edit an object that a non-PD mapper has created (because what the PD mapper uploads would be based on a non-PD source). Personally, I view the "I declare my edits PD" button as reading "I hereby declare that I will not pursue copyright on any copyrightable action I might make in OSM" which does not mean that all third-party copyright in something I touch become automatically void. 388 users have declared their edits to be PD on the Wiki for a long time, and I don't think any of them have restricted their editing to PD sources exclusively. So it seems editors will need to keep track of background image licenses anyway and with what they are compatible in order to warn or prevent the user in an adequate way. No, I don't think so. 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] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: > Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, which can't be quoted directly. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: >> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. > > At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to > be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, > which can't be quoted directly. Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give advice. Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't know. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
On 20 August 2010 06:35, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 388 users have declared their edits to be PD on the Wiki for a long time, > and I don't think any of them have restricted their editing to PD sources > exclusively. On the other hand I know some mappers that only ever map from their own GPS data, so they aren't likely to load layers any way. However this is off topic, my concern is with innocent mistakes, and protecting those users from themselves. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:40, SteveC wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: >>> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. >> >> At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to >> be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, >> which can't be quoted directly. > > Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite > clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the > LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give > advice. I said we have to take it on good faith the original intent is conveyed, because it's someone's interpretation of what was said, rather than a direct quote. > Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't > know. Stop quoting things out of context, neither OSM-F nor Nearmap gave anything but interpretations of what was said, yet it's ok in your opinion to question what they've said as being accurate but not OSM-F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: >> NearMap have some valid things they pointed out might make the CT's better. >> The LWG has had approximately 12 hours (from memory) to look at them, and >> for all we know might think they're awesome and change. Maybe not. We don't >> know. > > I'm getting kinda tired of these promises. Complains about section 3 > were already expressed two weeks ago. I haven't got clear answer. But > I still have a hope for LWG and OSMF, so I really hope answer comes > soon. I really don't want to sound like I don't respect your work. The LWG are volunteers who are overloaded and work for free, therefore they're not as snappy as you'd like. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:43 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 20 August 2010 06:40, SteveC wrote: >> >> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: >> >>> On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. >>> >>> At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to >>> be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, >>> which can't be quoted directly. >> >> Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite >> clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the >> LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give >> advice. > > I said we have to take it on good faith the original intent is > conveyed, because it's someone's interpretation of what was said, > rather than a direct quote. > >> Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't >> know. > > Stop quoting things out of context, neither OSM-F nor Nearmap gave > anything but interpretations of what was said, yet it's ok in your > opinion to question what they've said as being accurate but not OSM-F. Where did I question it's accuracy? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 06:48, SteveC wrote: > Where did I question it's accuracy? You said ... "Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it?" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote: > Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't > know. If I, as a company director, in Australia, receive legal advice obtained for that company, I can share it with the entire Board, and then the Board makes the decision on with whom the advice is shared. The lawyers do not get to decide with whom the advice is shared. When assessing legal advice consider Who asked for it What questions were actually asked and what the objectives of obtaining the advice were for example Board member AB seeks legal advice on removing Board Chair BC from office will produce a different result to Board Chair seeking legal advice on Board member AB's plan to unseat the Chair ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote: > NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data > hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license, > but the point is that we need to do something going forward which will be > on average better for everyone. It won't be perfect. Therefore we have to > make compromises. "hold data hostage" please put your imagination away and stick to facts. Compromise is necessary. Please now, go back to the original 2009 implementation proposal in which the proposal was "put to the community" and put away the May 2010 implementation plan in which it happens "when there is a critical mass" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: > > > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: > >> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. > > > > At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to > > be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, > > which can't be quoted directly. > > Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite > clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the > LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give > advice. > > > Steve, could you please share with us a copy of the brief that you provided > to WSGR when you engaged them? It would help greatly if we all knew what > terms of reference they were given when they were employed by OSMF. I think you were still on the board when we did it, and you have a copy of the agreement they sent? I can't immediately find a copy. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Nic Roets wrote: > Steve, > > I'm trying to be on your side. > > But as chairman of the OSMF board, you really need to pick your words better. > By saying "which every rational person I know thinks is the best step forward > - the ODbL", you are implying that a lot of people are irrational. Are you suggesting all the legal threads have been rational? > I see that your company recently raised $12m, and I deduce that your goal is > to make money. And that will be harder if NT and TA can use our data. They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:51 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 20 August 2010 06:48, SteveC wrote: >> Where did I question it's accuracy? > > You said ... "Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and > going along with it?" That's not me questioning their accuracy. You were saying that I couldn't discuss the opinion with NearMap as it was their lawyers opinion, I was saying I could, because it's them who employed them, repeated it and went along with it. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 19 August 2010 22:05, SteveC wrote: > I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points > to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I > don't personally feel is very cool. That's just another words to say "not linking the new lincese + CT is uncool", right? There are many more people who have issues with the new CTs (me included) and don't want their past data under the CTs, same goes for NearMap. It's not "trying to steer OSM", this was just NearMap's answer to the question "do you agree to CTs + ODbL". If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. As mentioned ODbL is probably the future but the process to get there sketched by LWG is Just Wrong ;) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC wrote: > They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike long > predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap. I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too many conflicting goals. If OSM/OSM-F's future really is with PD then fine say so, if it should stay BY-SA then fine say so, but this wishy washiness of trying to appease PD and SA groups isn't going anywhere. OSM-F needs clear goals with respect to future licensing, otherwise everyone is going to be unhappy and this will never be sorted. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > However this is off topic, my concern is with innocent mistakes, and > protecting those users from themselves. Indeed, back to the thread topic. New users must agree to the CT's, therefore cannot use Nearmap imagery to trace, so having the Nearmap imagery option in Potlatch is just going to create a situation where new users are violating the CTs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote: > > > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: > > > > > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: > > >> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. > > > > > > At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to > > > be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, > > > which can't be quoted directly. > > > > Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite > clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the > LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to give > advice. > > > > > > Steve, could you please share with us a copy of the brief that you > provided to WSGR when you engaged them? It would help greatly if we all > knew what terms of reference they were given when they were employed by > OSMF. > > I think you were still on the board when we did it, and you have a copy of > the agreement they sent? I can't immediately find a copy. > > I have a copy of their standard Letter of Engagement. What I'm asking for is details of the instructions you gave to them when you engaged them. I'm sure they will have records of this if you don't have a record of your first meeting with them. You might also want to disclose any subsequent instructions that you have given them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
Hi, Kai Krueger wrote: That is different, as the PD vs non-PD is "within the system" and thus there is full accountability due to the history. That is not the case when I a bring new data into OSM by tracing from other sources. You should always attribute those other sources properly, thus bringing them "into" the system. 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] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote: > > > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: > > > > > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: > > >> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. > > > > > > At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to > > > be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, > > > which can't be quoted directly. > > > > Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite > > clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the > > LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to > > give advice. > > > > > > Steve, could you please share with us a copy of the brief that you provided > > to WSGR when you engaged them? It would help greatly if we all knew what > > terms of reference they were given when they were employed by OSMF. > > I think you were still on the board when we did it, and you have a copy of > the agreement they sent? I can't immediately find a copy. > > I have a copy of their standard Letter of Engagement. > > What I'm asking for is details of the instructions you gave to them when you > engaged them. I'm sure they will have records of this if you don't have a > record of your first meeting with them. > > You might also want to disclose any subsequent instructions that you have > given them. 80n I don't think I specifically engaged them for a start, it would be OSMF and the LWG. Any engagement as far as I know would be the LWG asking them questions, so you'd have to check the minutes and ask them. Matt has been the point of contact and sent all the emails to WSGR cc: the LWG. I don't think the OSMF had any specific instructions other than the letter of engagement. I appreciate you're trying to make this all about me personally, and I understand you feel there is a vast conspiracy where I am at the hub, and this has something to do with CM dropping our previous lawyer. My understanding is that you feel we dropped them because they somehow disagreed with the ODbL. As far as I know CM never engaged them to look at the ODbL at all. We changed legal firm simply because they were unresponsive on the basic issues we needed done, like contracts and other stuff because the partner we were dealing with became too busy to deal with us. This is something like 2 years ago. I can't remember seeing anything from WSGR to CM on the ODbL either. That's mainly because anything we did there would have gone via Jim our CTO. My understanding is that the person at WSGR who deals with CM is different from the person who deals with the LWG for the same reason - it would be a conflict of interest. If there are any other pieces of the jigsaw I can place let me know, but I'm kind of at a loss on how to break down this attitude that it's all about me. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:33 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC wrote: >> >> On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote: >>> On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote: > Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps. At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer, which can't be quoted directly. >>> >>> Oh you think the LWG might be lying or making it all up? I remember quite >>> clearly WSGR's point that they can't advise the whole community, just the >>> LWG/OSMF and that putting advice in public jeopardizes their ability to >>> give advice. >>> >>> >>> Steve, could you please share with us a copy of the brief that you provided >>> to WSGR when you engaged them? It would help greatly if we all knew what >>> terms of reference they were given when they were employed by OSMF. >> >> I think you were still on the board when we did it, and you have a copy of >> the agreement they sent? I can't immediately find a copy. >> >> I have a copy of their standard Letter of Engagement. >> >> What I'm asking for is details of the instructions you gave to them when you >> engaged them. I'm sure they will have records of this if you don't have a >> record of your first meeting with them. Oh and in case you think I'm dodging this one, which wasn't my intention - my memory is that I had two meetings at WSGR. One was a informal introduction, "can you help us?" affair where we simply decided that they probably could. Then they sent us that engagement letter which I signed on behalf of OSMF, then there was another meeting with Clark and me at WSGR with either the OSMF or LWG on the call. I think it was the LWG, but again this is all something like 2 years ago. If you want their minutes etc then you'll have to ask the LWG. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, SteveC wrote: > NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data > hostage in this way. I sure hope you've tried your best to listen to their points and explain yours, and come to an absolute impasse, before accusing them of this in a public email. Since when do you consider insisting your data remain under a ShareAlike license to be "holding data hostage", anyway? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSMContributor Terms
- Original Message - From: "SteveC" To: "Peteris Krisjanis" ; "Licensing and other legal discussions." ; "Ben Last" Cc: "Brad Neuhauser" ; "Pierre-Alain Dorange" Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSMContributor Terms Moving to legal-talk Ben in future please post here. On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: It is not only about NearMap, we have tens of goverment sources which requires attribution. It *is* talk list issue. It is about future of the project. Not yet it isn't. NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license, This is just silly. In what way are NearMap attempting to "hold a lot of data hostage". They have allowed the OSM community to trace from their imagery under the licence terms which OSM had in force. OSM want to change the licence, and NearMap have said the new CT's are not acceptable to them. That's not NearMap's fault. Its the fault of the way the CT's are drafted. NearMap haven't changed their stance in any way but the point is that we need to do something going forward which will be on average better for everyone. It won't be perfect. Therefore we have to make compromises. NearMap have some valid things they pointed out might make the CT's better. The LWG has had approximately 12 hours (from memory) to look at them, and for all we know might think they're awesome and change. Maybe not. We don't know. That's not the same thing as "oh my god we should do whatever NearMap want us to do". No one has suggested "we should do whatever NearMap want us to do " in fact they were very clear they said "not our place as a company to try and direct or influence the direction of OSM". Therefore it's a discussion about the points in the CT's, which may or may not be changed. Not just "do whatever NearMap says". See my point above. How often you repeat "do whatever NearMap says" wont make any difference to the fact that they haven't said that, and only makes SteveC seem paranoid / ridiculous. I think a much better position from NearMap would be to compromise on the data already in. Say, yes the data already derived can be used under the So NearMap should compromise so that in order use of their data is compliant with OSM's badly written CT's? Surely a better position would be either to consider re-writing the CT's, or simply accept some loss of data. CT's. Then work with the LWG to fix the issues they see. You can't really put "it's not our place as a company to try and direct or influence the direction of OSM." at the end of an email which is all about trying to direct and influence the directions of the LWG and OSM and expect to be taken seriously. I'd be more honest and say, yes, we do want to change the Steve if you want to betaken seriously then I suggest you don't misrepresent the views of others. direction so that it suits our business better. Because that's the reality as I see it. And it's not really that bad. I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word I think the bigger issue is that the "intention" of the licence/ CT's does not match the "word" of the licence. Unfortunately when reading and agree the CT's, it's the words we will be agreeing to. of the license. We can debate for the next millennia the meaning of a "future free and open license" under the specific wording of what that might mean. These are open issues that will take a long time, possibly a lot longer than the ODbL process to figure out. If its all so open to interpretation they don't be surprised if many people find they cant agree to it. I don't think we're going to get anywhere bouncing between people who want everything to be PD (like USGS) and folks who want it to be some variant of attribution-sharealike and possibly NC (NearMap). We need to move forward in the spirit of compromise on to something which every rational person I know thinks is the best step forward - the ODbL. The other way of cooling this off is to not see the ODbL as the final step. I don't think it was intended to be. Once that's in place, then the field is open to discuss the next steps. Finally, I think the most honest step forward for NearMap and us unless they show some compromise on things like past data is to just shut it off. Believe me, there are a lot of other aerial imagery options being pursued hard and NearMap aren't the be all and end all. If they don't want to play ball and want to place restrictions on OSM, lets just work on alternatives. I look forward to all these new imagery providers coming forward :) On a more general, and much more serious, note I think the tone of your post and the comments you have made to be totally inappropriate for the current Chairman of OSMF. I cant see that it w
[OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, to give some perspective to the debate about whether or not existing NearMap-derived objects will have to be deleted, I have summed up the number of edits in all changesets that said anything about NearMap in any tag (comment, source, etc). I arrived at a sum of 1,057,549, slightly over 1 million. The total number of objects in Australia is 10,234,567. That means that roughly 10% of data in Australia might be affected by NearMap. At the same time, the total number of objects in OSM is roughly 800 million, so Australia makes up for only 1.25% of OSM data (NB: not to be confused with mailing list volume, of which Australia has something like 10%). Only 0.125% of OSM data worldwide is affected by NearMap. That obviously explains why NearMap is very important to the community in Australia. But for the project as a whole, one million objects is really not something we should make a big fuss about. For example, we had a time-limited "loan" of aerial imagery for a small region here in Germany last year (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Luftbilder_aus_Bayern), and the community traced ~ 2 million objects within 3 months *in addition* to normal mapping going on everywhere in Germany. After the Haiti earthquake, 1 million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks. My statistics are of course flawed - they do not capture objects individually tagged source=nearmap rather than on the changeset, and if an object has been modified more than once in a "nearmap" changeset, it has been counted twice. Also, I counted ALL objects for any changeset that said something with nearmap, so if someone put "comment=tons of POIs from GPS plus one road from nearmap" that counts them all. And probably lots of other errors. I'm posting this to legal-talk because even though this posting does not deal with anything legal, I have a hunch that follow-ups will. 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] Size of NearMap Contribution
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > That obviously explains why NearMap is very important to the community in > Australia. But for the project as a whole, one million objects is really not > something we should make a big fuss about. I think that the people count more than the data they contribute. Actually, that's a quote. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
On 20 August 2010 11:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I arrived at a sum of 1,057,549, slightly over 1 million. The total number > of objects in Australia is 10,234,567. That means that roughly 10% of data > in Australia might be affected by NearMap. How much will be effected that has attribution tags? Nearmap is just the obvious example because of the impact it had on improving the map data, but it isn't the only data that will be effected. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > one million objects is really not > something we should make a big fuss about. [...] > After the Haiti earthquake, 1 > million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks. So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about? Hopefully people who will make the switch decision have a different opinion. Note that a user who traces nearmap in some of their changesets can not accept the Contributor Terms "partially" (although they can release this data under ODbL), all of their edits are tainted to OSM under the current switchover plan. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > My statistics are of course flawed - they do not capture objects > individually tagged source=nearmap rather than on the changeset, and if an > object has been modified more than once in a "nearmap" changeset, it has > been counted twice. Also, I counted ALL objects for any changeset that said > something with nearmap, so if someone put "comment=tons of POIs from GPS > plus one road from nearmap" that counts them all. And probably lots of other > errors. I don't really know what others do, but I no longer tag my changeset with nearmap, only individual objects with source=nearmap (without mentioning nearmap in the comment). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
