Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:24 AM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> There are also the Public Domain dedication licenses and the
> attribution-only licenses, which possibly may be treated as an
> authorisation from the provider to include the data in OSM.

Oh, that's a good point. So there are existing licences (not that PD
is really a licence) that are sufficiently open for the CTs.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 6 October 2010 00:04, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.  
>> So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate 
>> that in plain language.
>
> What I was getting at:
> 1) The CTs require that incoming be licensed as CC-BY-SA, and ODbL
> *and* possible future licenses
> 2) I doubt there exists any data provider in the world that provides
> such a license as a matter of course
> 3) Therefore any incoming content would have to come from a data
> provider that *explicitly authorises it for OSM*.
> 4) Therefore the fact of any existing content being licensed under
> CC-BY-SA and/or ODbL is meaningless, because it's not enough.
>
>> So you really need to go back to the actual rights holder and ask them to 
>> clarify what they personally/organisationally are happy with, or better 
>> still, use a more appropriate license.  That is a major reason we want to 
>> move away from it ourselves.
>
> Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even if they licensed the
> data under ODbL 1.0, that's not enough for me to use that data: I
> don't have permission from the data provider to relicense it under
> PFDbL 1.1 (possible future database licence 1.1).

There are also the Public Domain dedication licenses and the
attribution-only licenses, which possibly may be treated as an
authorisation from the provider to include the data in OSM.

>
>> The other alternative is for us collectively to get a highly authoritative 
>> source to say that a CC-BY-SA license on data could reasonably be 
>> interpreted as giving permission to contribute to OSM. I'll find out where 
>> we are on that.
>
> The other alternative is to ditch the future licence clause.

I agree this would be the best option.  As far back as I looked
through the LWG meeting minutes this option was never considered
despite seemingly being supported by many mappers (one poll indicates
that the majority of those who care).  RichardF mentioned that he
asked the LWG directly to look at this option but again the minutes
don't reflect any discussion about it.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.  
> So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate 
> that in plain language.

What I was getting at:
1) The CTs require that incoming be licensed as CC-BY-SA, and ODbL
*and* possible future licenses
2) I doubt there exists any data provider in the world that provides
such a license as a matter of course
3) Therefore any incoming content would have to come from a data
provider that *explicitly authorises it for OSM*.
4) Therefore the fact of any existing content being licensed under
CC-BY-SA and/or ODbL is meaningless, because it's not enough.


> So you really need to go back to the actual rights holder and ask them to 
> clarify what they personally/organisationally are happy with, or better 
> still, use a more appropriate license.  That is a major reason we want to 
> move away from it ourselves.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even if they licensed the
data under ODbL 1.0, that's not enough for me to use that data: I
don't have permission from the data provider to relicense it under
PFDbL 1.1 (possible future database licence 1.1).

> The other alternative is for us collectively to get a highly authoritative 
> source to say that a CC-BY-SA license on data could reasonably be interpreted 
> as giving permission to contribute to OSM. I'll find out where we are on that.

The other alternative is to ditch the future licence clause.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licansing and CT 1.1

[Mike Collinson]

At 09:03 AM 5/10/2010, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
>Ed Avis  writes:
>
>> Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to 
>> accept future
>> contributor terms proposed by the OSMF.  Then there wouldn't be the need to
>> re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change.
>
>Insurance companies would love this idea :) However, I consider that by 
>accepting Contributor Terms the mapper makes a binding contract with 
>OSMF and that can be changed only if both OSMF and mapper accept it. 
>License can be changed later because that possibility is written in CT 
>but not CTs.
>
>Now we have perhaps 20 or 30 thousand contracts with CT 1.0 but apparently in 
>the future contibutors will be asked to accept CT 1.1. What is the plan with 
>those CT 1.0 mappers? Will they just continue to contribute under CT 1.0 or 
>will they be asked to accept CT 1.1 before they can continue?  For me the 
>changes between 1.0 and 1.1 look negligible but perhaps having both CT 1.0 
>and CT 1.1 users could make things even more garbled.

At the moment I do not see any need to force CT1.0 contributors to accept a 
CT1.1,  they can just continue under 1.0.  However, any user should have the 
voluntary option to do so if they wish.

I completely agree with your first paragraph point.  It is extremely important 
for contributors to lock in the OSMF.  This is the anti-hijack mechanism.  Even 
if a future OSMF were able to get new contributors to accept some different 
kind of terms, the OSMF would still be obligated to a large mass of existing 
contributors, who would control the bulk of the data, to release only under a 
free and open license.


Mike
LWG 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[Mike Collinson]

To come back on topic, I don't think this has made legal-talk yet.  Thanks to 
Jordan Hatcher, whose mail I am re-working:

The new UK Open Government Licence is now out:




It's essentially an attribution only license, so inter-operable with lots of 
other licenses. They've explicitly noted interoperability with the Open Data 
Commons Attribution License:

"These terms have been aligned to be inter-operable with any Creative Commons 
Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution 
License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights."

Two immediate things to note.  I am not sure whether the "any" extends to Open 
Data Commons Attribution License.  The "Open Data Commons Attribution License" 
per se is the attribution-only version of ODbL and distinct from it.  I also at 
the moment have no idea whether the OS will / will have to move to this license 
or when.

That said,  in my first read I am very encouraged by the new attribution clause 
which seems far more practical in application than the previous one:  

"acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution 
statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide 
a link to this licence; "

I would speculate that clause 4 of the new CTs covers us. [Which will make me 
happy as I specifically designed it for governmental organisations]

"4. At Your or the copyright holder’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or 
the copyright holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.
 "

That being said,  I'll be pushing for planet dumps and [X]API responses to 
include an XML element pointing to the same Attribution link to better 
discharge our distribution responsibilities.


I look forward to any other comments. Anyone see any gotchas?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[Ed Avis]

Grant Slater  writes:

>>>neither CC-By-SA
>>>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
>>>current contributor terms.
>>
>>Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
>
>Automatic presumed compatibility no. Receiving permission from
>restrictive data sources is not a bad thing in my mind.

What I meant to say was: under these contributor terms, OSM is not compatible
with itself!  Although the OSM project licenses its data under CC-BY-SA
or under ODbL, it would not accept such licences from others.

Whether this really matters, or is just an obscure point of principle, is open
to debate.  But it's certainly the case.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[Grant Slater]

On 5 October 2010 08:28, Ed Avis  wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski  writes:
>
>>To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
>>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
>>current contributor terms.
>
> Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
>

Automatic presumed compatibility no. Receiving permission from
restrictive data sources is not a bad thing in my mind.

Alternatively we could just move to the
Never-Release-Anything-Non-Public-Non-Commercial-No-Share-License(tm)
and import _ANY_ data we want. ;-)

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[Ed Avis]

andrzej zaborowski  writes:

>To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
>current contributor terms.

Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licansing and CT 1.1

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Ed Avis  writes:

> Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to 
> accept future
> contributor terms proposed by the OSMF.  Then there wouldn't be the need to
> re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change.

Insurance companies would love this idea :) However, I consider that by 
accepting Contributor Terms the mapper makes a binding contract with 
OSMF and that can be changed only if both OSMF and mapper accept it. 
License can be changed later because that possibility is written in CT 
but not CTs.

Now we have perhaps 20 or 30 thousand contracts with CT 1.0 but apparently in 
the future contibutors will be asked to accept CT 1.1. What is the plan with 
those CT 1.0 mappers? Will they just continue to contribute under CT 1.0 or 
will they be asked to accept CT 1.1 before they can continue?  For me the 
changes between 1.0 and 1.1 look negligible but perhaps having both CT 1.0 
and CT 1.1 users could make things even more garbled.


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