Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On 11/17/2010 04:25 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: A bigger problem, in my mind, would be facilitating a fracturing of the copyleft universe. ODbL "Produced Works" may be BY-SA. In practice this amounts to an increase in the amount of share-alike data available to the cultural works area of the share-alike universe rather than a fracturing of the data share-alike universe that BY-SA doesn't cover to the same extent at the moment. A one-way compatibility across different forms. Imagine GPL game engines and BY-SA game content in parallel. Or GPL operating software for [insert eventually successful share-alike hardware licence here] hardware. Each licence effectively covers the work it is designed to, and the two work well in parallel. That is how the ODbL and BY-SA can complement each other. I realize that there's an argument that data and content are separate magisteria, but I'm pretty skeptical. CC does appear to have treated data and cultural works as separate magisteria to *some* degree, with Science Commons as a separate initiative with its own ethical and practical norms, and what I've seen of the discussion of DB right during the CC 3.0 revision process. But certainly where copyright does apply to databases or their content it won't respect the difference (OSM handles this with the DbCL). And even if we try to create a conceptual rather than a legal dividing line, some data may be culture (or creative work or whatever). The best example of where data is culture I can think of off the top of my head is the Radiohead "House of Cards" video. The data for that is BY-NC-SA. It could be ODbL with a BY-NC-SA video, but videos derivative of the data rather than the video itself could have any licence. As a copyleft proponent, I don't think that's ideal, but I think that a better share-alike for the data in parallel is a good thing. - Ron. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Looks good. My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any "free and open" licence. Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed as those restrictions could be broken in the future. Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed. As I said in another thread, I think there is a big difference between "free and open" and "similar" as per ODbL. It would be hard to argue that a hypothetical licence that contradicted a term of ODbL was similar, but it could well still be free and open. Since ODbL is free and open any similar licence must arguably also be free and open, so I see the similar requirement as tighter. I see a few solutions (a) remove the reference totally, but assuming the clause was included for a good reason this seems unlikely, (b) mirror the "similar" language which should ease concerns about losing control, (c) add a requirement that somehow allows the owner of data to object to a licence change to their data and withdraw it from a relicensed OSM (complex and possibly impractical). Kevin --Original Message-- From: Richard Weait Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 17 Nov 2010 02:30 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2 There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb Various draft versions have been around for a while. I think we've improved the CT with each revision. LWG have had some wonderful suggestions from members of the community that are incorporated in the current draft. On the other hand it feels like there have been more folks with criticisms of CT v1.0 than there are folks who have taken the time to offer a patch. So I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the contributor terms? Is this an improvement? What aspects address your concerns regarding previous versions? What aspects could be further improved and how? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 11/17/2010 09:46 AM, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any "free and open" licence. Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed as those restrictions could be broken in the future. The only restriction currently allowed in the CTs is attribution. Since agreeing to attribution is a precondition for the use of that data, it would have to be removed if attribution was. Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed. But looking OSM as a project in its own right rather than an aggregator of other project's data, restricting OSM's ability to do the right thing in the future based on restrictions imposed by other projects who can change their own licencing at will puts OSM at a disadvantage. As I said in another thread, I think there is a big difference between "free and open" and "similar" as per ODbL. It would be hard to argue that a hypothetical licence that contradicted a term of ODbL was similar, but it could well still be free and open. Since ODbL is free and open any similar licence must arguably also be free and open, so I see the similar requirement as tighter. If "any free and open" was replaced with "similar", the licence could still be changed to an evil one in a series of steps. The control on all this is that any change must be voted for. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Rob Myers writes: >>My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any >>"free and open" licence. Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't >>see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed >>as those restrictions could be broken in the future. > >The only restriction currently allowed in the CTs is attribution. That is not specified by the CTs, even in the proposed version 1.2. They say that 'OSMF agrees to attribute you or the copyright owner', but they do not promise that any future licence chosen will have an attribution requirement. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Richard Weait writes: >There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor >Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings. > >https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb One thing that isn't very clear is 'ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database'. What exactly is the difference between the 'database' and its 'contents' in the case of OSM? 'other such free and open licence' should change to 'licence(s)'. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 17 November 2010 10:46, Ed Avis wrote: > > 'other such free and open licence' should change to 'licence(s)'. > I think we should keep the free and open as it clears any ambiguities about OSMF potentially going rogue and imposing a proprietary licence (not that I see that happening at all). That means that by mandate, we will always make sure that the data is always available in a true open source fashion. I think it is clearly important as a sign that we have no desire to move from the initial statement to provide free data. Emily Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 17 November 2010 11:00, Emilie Laffray wrote: > > > On 17 November 2010 10:46, Ed Avis wrote: > >> >> 'other such free and open licence' should change to 'licence(s)'. >> > > I think we should keep the free and open as it clears any ambiguities about > OSMF potentially going rogue and imposing a proprietary licence (not that I > see that happening at all). That means that by mandate, we will always make > sure that the data is always available in a true open source fashion. > I think it is clearly important as a sign that we have no desire to move > from the initial statement to provide free data. > Sorry misread your comment. (Didn't realize you were just adding a plural). Please discard my previous comment. Emily Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 11/17/2010 10:42 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myers writes: My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any "free and open" licence. Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed as those restrictions could be broken in the future. The only restriction currently allowed in the CTs is attribution. That is not specified by the CTs, even in the proposed version 1.2. They say that 'OSMF agrees to attribute you or the copyright owner', but they do not promise that any future licence chosen will have an attribution requirement. I mean that the restriction is a (pre)condition for OSM(F) accepting the data. You are right that there is no promise to maintain attribution, but should attribution be removed the condition on which the data was accepted would be broken and so the data couldn't be used. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Hi, On 11/17/10 10:46, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed. No, the data contributed to OSM can come under any terms as long as they are compatible with the *current* license; the onus is on OSM to remove it if a license change makes continued distribution impossible - quote from draft: "(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may [suspend access to or ] delete that data temporarily or permanently." To me, this is the exact opposite of "losing control over how their data is licensed". Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
Grant Slater writes: >>I think it's pretty clear that data, if derived from the OSM data, would need >>to be distributed under the same share-alike terms. > >Yes under CC-BY-SA only the product created from the data. I don't think this is a meaningful distinction - or else I am not understanding you correctly. The OSM planet file, for example, is a product created from the OSM data, by putting it into a convenient XML format. Are you really saying that copyright does not apply to the planet file? It is data, and is copyright, and thus must be distributed under CC-BY-SA or not at all. The Oxford English Dictionary is also just a big lump of data, but is indisputably covered by copyright too. >I'm part of the sysadmin team and LWG. There are no plans to restrict >OSM.org tiles now or in the future. (subject to >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy ) >On an adoption of ODbL the OSM tiles will most likely remain CC-BY-SA >licensed too. As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain? >>>But I'm not really talking about infringements per se; I'm talking about >>>circumventing the spirit of CC-BY-SA within the letter of CC-BY-SA. The >>>"computer-generated derivative" previously discussed here and on >>>cc-community is the obvious example; you can avoid having to share if you >>>combine on the client rather than the server. >> >>That's more interesting. Yes, you can run a program on your local computer >>to download data (or any copyrighted work, really) and make manipulations to >>it. >I am misunderstandin; local changes (non-distributed) on ODbL licensed >data are not restricted. I thought Richard F. above was implying that ODbL had the power to stop people making, for example, a local client program which downloads OSM data plus some proprietary data set, combining it locally, and using it without distributing it further. If so, that would be a rather nasty licence condition. But I may not have got what he meant. >At the moment under CC-BY-SA we have a ver fuzzy set of ideas/rules >what is and what isn't allowed. Sure ODbL+DbCL+CTs is more text, but >things are a lot clearer cut. I am not sure because there are so many fuzzy concepts which don't get nailed down - like the seemingly nonsensical distinction between the map 'database' and the 'database contents', or the vague definition of Produced Work. A licence written specifically about maps and geodata and using more specific terms would work a lot better. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Richard Weait writes: >>Uh... but that 'condition on which the data was accepted' isn't specified >>anywhere in the contributor terms. If it really is a condition that OSMF will >>only distribute the data under an attribution-required licence, then the terms >>need to say so. > >Clarifying draft please? I would state something like 'any free and open licence(s), as long as the chosen licence(s) maintain the requirement that contributors be attributed'. If you promise that then the business about OSMF agreeing to provide a web page is not necessary. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Frederik Ramm writes: >No, the data contributed to OSM can come under any terms as long as they >are compatible with the *current* license; the onus is on OSM to remove >it if a license change makes continued distribution impossible - quote >from draft: > >"(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the >sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with >whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), >then we may [suspend access to or ] delete that data temporarily or >permanently." In that case why do we need the contributor terms at all, apart from a general statement that you have permission to add the data, and you're happy for it to be distributed under the current licence? If the data contributed can come under any terms, and it is OSM's job to remove it if they change licence, does that mean that an individual contributor could provide data under the terms 'CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0 is fine, but not anything else'? -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > > On 11/17/10 10:46, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: > >> Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is >> considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as >> the term means they would lose control over how their data is >> licensed. >> > > No, the data contributed to OSM can come under any terms as long as they > are compatible with the *current* license; the onus is on OSM to remove it > if a license change makes continued distribution impossible - quote from > draft: > > No, the data contributed to OSM must be licensed to OSMF under the contributor terms: "You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other." The rider in section three restricts what OSMF can do with the contents but it doesn't give any contributor the right to agree to the above clause unless they have full ownership of that content. > "(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense > that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever > licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may > [suspend access to or ] delete that data temporarily or permanently." > > To me, this is the exact opposite of "losing control over how their data is > licensed". > > Bye > Frederik > > > ___ > 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] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
> > No, the data contributed to OSM must be licensed to OSMF under the > contributor terms: > > "You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a > worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do > any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right > over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any > other." > > The rider in section three restricts what OSMF can do with the contents but > it doesn't give any contributor the right to agree to the above clause > unless they have full ownership of that content. > Quite. There's probably a missing "to the extent that you are able" or similar before the "You hereby grant", or some similar dependant wording. It is only a draft so far, my understanding is that its clearly intended that (i) to the extent that the contributor has copyright etc in the contributed data, they license OSMF to use it and (ii) to the extent that they don't, they are asked (but not required to warrant) that the contributor makes sure it is compatible with the current licence. That seems to me the only way to do things if you want to allow both sets of data to be incorporated and the possibility of any future licence change. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain? Indeed. But I think that you are right that this is a side note. Why not start that discussion on the wiki, or in a separate thread here? I've changed the subject to reflect this. What would be your preference for the future tile license? Ed, do you have a preferred future tile license? Would it be okay with you if I published my future tiles under a license that differs from that of openstreetmap.org tiles? I think it is a net-benefit for the project and the community if future tiles can be published anywhere along the spectrum of Proprietary< --->Some rights reserved<--->No rights reserved But the main OSM site and tile server is a special case. We should aim to set a good example. What should the future tile license be? Is it simplest to keep the tile license the same as it is now rather than risk compatibility problems with downstream consumers of tiles? Should the main site create tiles under a selection of licenses? Do we aim for minimum change in the tile license, or do we aim for maximum compatibility for the tiles by changing the tile license to PDDL or CC-Zero? I am not suggesting a change in tile usage policy. Tiles should still be primarily a service to assist mappers, not an unrestricted service for tile consumers. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 17 November 2010 11:11, Richard Weait wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Ed Avis wrote: >> Uh... but that 'condition on which the data was accepted' isn't specified >> anywhere in the contributor terms. If it really is a condition that OSMF >> will >> only distribute the data under an attribution-required licence, then the >> terms >> need to say so. > > Clarifying draft please? Current drafting is that OSMF will attribute itself on request, not that they will distribute under an attribution required licence. The former is much less restrictive than the latter. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On 17 November 2010 01:27, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > >These people would still want everything that is used by OSM > under ODbL to be re-mapped from scratch. > Who are "These people"? Nobody I know is calling for any sort of from scratch remapping. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On 17/11/2010, Grant Slater wrote: > On 17 November 2010 01:27, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >>These people would still want everything that is used by OSM >> under ODbL to be re-mapped from scratch. >> > > Who are "These people"? Nobody I know is calling for any sort of from > scratch remapping. Those who want the OSMF to have the ability to switch licenses in the future without a data loss. I thought I have heard at least a couple of people on this list arguing for this and I don't see another way it could be achieved. There was also the talk about kayakking around Australia. Cheers > > Regards > Grant > > ___ > 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] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Francis Davey writes: >>No, the data contributed to OSM must be licensed to OSMF under the >>contributor terms: >> >>"You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a >>worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence >> The rider in section three restricts what OSMF can do with the contents but >> it doesn't give any contributor the right to agree to the above clause >> unless they have full ownership of that content. > >Quite. There's probably a missing "to the extent that you are able" or >similar before the "You hereby grant", or some similar dependant >wording. It is only a draft so far, my understanding is that its >clearly intended that (i) to the extent that the contributor has >copyright etc in the contributed data, they license OSMF to use it and >(ii) to the extent that they don't, they are asked (but not required >to warrant) that the contributor makes sure it is compatible with the >current licence. If that's the intention it is entirely sensible, but quite different to what I and others had understood! The terms should say what they mean, and unambiguously enough that there can be no dispute. Legalese is a bad idea - we have seen plenty of cases where reasonable people have attached quite different interpretations to the same licence text or contributor terms (quite apart from questions of enforceability or the scope of copyright law, which are obviously the domain of lawyers). It does not matter whose interpretation is correct - the fact that there is scope for such confusion is a reason to rewrite it. So if the contributor terms are meant to say 'you make a best effort to ensure your contribution can be distributed under our current licences, even though it need not be compatible with future licences we may choose, and we will take the trouble to remove it if so' then they should say that. On the other hand if the intention is 'you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, so we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, and you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that' then this must be made doubly clear, with an extra redundant paragraph if needed. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
- Original Message - From: "Frederik Ramm" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2 Hi, On 11/17/10 10:46, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed. No, the data contributed to OSM can come under any terms as long as they are compatible with the *current* license; the onus is on OSM to remove it if a license change makes continued distribution impossible - quote from draft: "(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may [suspend access to or ] delete that data temporarily or permanently." To me, this is the exact opposite of "losing control over how their data is licensed". Firstly may I congratulate the LWG for the effort they have put in to the revised CT's, which IMHO has resulted in a much better form of wording. One problem I see is that is the current draft (quoted above) says "we may delete that data temporarily or permanently." This implies that "we" might not delete the data. Since there is no guarantee that "we" will try our best to delete the data, then legally I don't see the point in promising that something may or may not happen. If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added, and who will be able to agree to the CT's. I would prefer to see CT's such as "(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we will delete that data temporarily or permanently. 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, and 1(b) above" David Bye Frederik ___ 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] Best license for future tiles?
Richard Weait writes: >>As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain? >What would be your preference for the future tile license? Ed, do you >have a preferred future tile license? I don't think that is the important question. If the OSM project's licence says that rendered map tiles (or Produced Works, if we assume that the ODbL's terminology applies in this way) need not be distributed under any particular terms, then anybody can download the planet file and Mapnik configuration and make their own tiles released into the public domain. Since anyone can do it, it would be silly for the OSM project to choose anything more restrictive. More important is the licensing for the source data from which the images or printed pages are generated - what permission should it grant for such derived works? And the choice there is essentially 'under the same licence as the source data' or 'unrestricted'; I don't think much in between makes sense. Presumably it would help out MapQuest, CloudMade and others if they could generate map tiles from OSM without having to publish those under share-alike. And that would probably help the project. So I'd reluctantly have to conclude that allowing it is a good idea. That does jar a bit with the claim sometimes advanced that we must move to ODbL because it provides stronger share-alike provisions. >Would it be okay with you if I published my future tiles under a >license that differs from that of openstreetmap.org tiles? I don't see it would be up to me? Of course, if I had agreed to license my map contributions under ODbL then I would implicitly have agreed to that. >But the main OSM site and tile server is a special case. We should >aim to set a good example. Yes, and that good example would be public domain. What would be the point of insisting on something else, when it can be so easily circumvented by creating a Tile Drawer instance? (Unless, of course, as a deliberate step to keep load down on the tile server... but the kind of people who ignore the tile usage policy would happily ignore any licence terms as well.) >Is it simplest to keep the tile license the same as it is now rather >than risk compatibility problems with downstream consumers of tiles? I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any compatibility problem. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 17 November 2010 13:30, David Groom wrote: > > > If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one > licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence > chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added, and who will be able > to agree to the CT's. > That's a misunderstanding of the draft. A contributor may contribute any data that is presently compatible (as far as they can see). OSMF aren't obliged to deal with the situation if, later, that data is not then compatible, but that doesn't either affect the contrbutor or cause the contributor any difficulty. Its not their faulr if OSMF misuse data at a later stage. > I would prefer to see CT's such as > > "(b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense > that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever > licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we will > delete that data temporarily or permanently. Is exactly what you don't want because its a *promise* by OSMF to do something if there is a suspicion. I doubt you'd want to tie OSMF's hands in that way. They might want to take legal advice, or approach the rights holder or do something else, perhaps even challenge the rights holder over it (as wikipedia has done with the national portrait gallery). The draft at the moment permits OSMF to do something but doesn't require them to. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Francis Davey writes: > >>>No, the data contributed to OSM must be licensed to OSMF under the >>>contributor terms: >>> >>>"You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a >>>worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence > >>> The rider in section three restricts what OSMF can do with the contents but >>> it doesn't give any contributor the right to agree to the above clause >>> unless they have full ownership of that content. >> >>Quite. There's probably a missing "to the extent that you are able" or >>similar before the "You hereby grant", or some similar dependant >>wording. It is only a draft so far, my understanding is that its >>clearly intended that (i) to the extent that the contributor has >>copyright etc in the contributed data, they license OSMF to use it and >>(ii) to the extent that they don't, they are asked (but not required >>to warrant) that the contributor makes sure it is compatible with the >>current licence. > > If that's the intention it is entirely sensible, but quite different to what > I and others had understood! > > The terms should say what they mean, and unambiguously enough that there can > be > no dispute. The terms should say what they mean, and unambiguously. There's always going to be room for misinterpretation and therefore dispute. It seems to me to go without saying that when you grant someone a license you are only granting them a license on your own work, not anyone else's. But obviously this should be reviewed by a copyright lawyer to ensure that's the case (and to fix it so it is the case, if not). > So if the contributor terms are meant to say 'you make a best effort to ensure > your contribution can be distributed under our current licences, even though > it need not be compatible with future licences we may choose, and we will take > the trouble to remove it if so' then they should say that. I didn't see anyone say anything about "best effort", though there is a clause in square brackets which clarifies this (and I'm not sure if it's meant to be in or out of the final version): "If you contribute data which is the intellectual property of someone else, it should be compatible with our current licence terms. You do not need to guarantee that it is, but you risk having your contribution deleted (see below) if it is not." > On the other hand > if the intention is 'you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, so > we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, > and you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that' then > this must be made doubly clear, with an extra redundant paragraph if needed. I don't see any reason to believe that's the case. The stated intention is "you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all", nothing about "we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD", and nothing about "you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that". Why are you adding things that aren't there? On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > So I'm particularly interested in hearing from those > who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the > contributor terms? Is this an improvement? It is a tremendous improvement. > What aspects could be further improved and how? Get rid of clause 3 and the references to it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/17/10 04:26, Anthony wrote: >> >> They left what process? The goal of the process was not to find a >> license like the ODbL. The goal of the process was to address the sui >> generis database right within the CC framework. > > This is not a contradiction. I never said it was a contradiction. > The ODbL could well have been "the way to address data in the CC framework". It could have been, if the ODbL were acceptable to CC. But it wasn't. And it wasn't the goal of the process. > I'd avoid talking specifically of the > "sui generis database right" because that was clearly not an issue in the > beginning; the issue they tried to solve was that "no one understood the > legal aspects of data very clearly, no one could figure out an algorithm for > when copyright applied and when it didn't, and everyone wanted a solution." The solution to that problem doesn't require changing the license at all, does it? > I'm not a CC insider; I have my knowledge mainly from stuff that John > Wilbanks has published. The above quote is from > http://blogs.nature.com/wilbanks/2007/12/ which tells a story that starts in > October 2006. Thanks. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/17/2010 04:25 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> >> A bigger problem, in my mind, would be facilitating a fracturing of the >> copyleft universe. > > ODbL "Produced Works" may be BY-SA. Possibly. But if so that BY-SA doesn't extend to the underlying data, so it's rather useless. Furthermore, you can't use pre-existing BY-SA data in your "Produced Work", as that would violate the BY-SA clause that "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License." The point of BY-SA is that you can do whatever you want with the work, so long as you attribute and the derivative is BY-SA. If you can't reverse engineer the work to extract out the underlying data, and use that underlying data under BY-SA, then the work can't meaningfully be said to be under BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Anthony writes: [CTs] >>On the other hand >>if the intention is 'you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, so >>we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, >>and you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that' then >>this must be made doubly clear, with an extra redundant paragraph if needed. > >I don't see any reason to believe that's the case. The stated >intention is "you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all", >nothing about "we can therefore redistribute under practically any >free licence including PD", and nothing about "you have made sure that >your contributions are compatible with that". Why are you adding >things that aren't there? I believe those are logical consequences of granting the perpetual licence to do any act etc. However, even if they are logical consequences and don't strictly need to be stated, it would be good to add some redundant language just so that things are totally clear. However, note that I said 'if' - *if* that is the intention, then the CTs should say so. If the intention is something else, they should say that. At the moment the intention is not entirely clear, if the confusion on this list is anything to go by. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Francis Davey writes: >>If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one >>licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence >>chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added, and who will be able >>to agree to the CT's. > >That's a misunderstanding of the draft. A contributor may contribute >any data that is presently compatible (as far as they can see). This is good to hear, but it needs to be stated explicitly in the CTs. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 17 November 2010 16:58, Ed Avis wrote: > Francis Davey writes: > >>>If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one >>>licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence >>>chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added, and who will be able >>>to agree to the CT's. >> >>That's a misunderstanding of the draft. A contributor may contribute >>any data that is presently compatible (as far as they can see). > > This is good to hear, but it needs to be stated explicitly in the CTs. > Is: "Your contribution of data should not infringe the intellectual property rights of anyone else. [If you contribute data which is the intellectual property of someone else, it should be compatible with our current licence terms. You do not need to guarantee that it is, but you risk having your contribution deleted (see below) if it is not." not clear enough? The "You do not need to guarantee" surely says it as plainly as one can reasonably expect. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
2010/11/17 Ed Avis : > I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any > compatibility problem. PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering, attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand this, while the tiles themselves might be quite unrestricted, the contained data still won't be --- also under OdbL. Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Francis Davey writes: >Is: > >"Your contribution of data should not infringe the intellectual >property rights of anyone else. [If you contribute data which is the >intellectual property of someone else, it should be compatible with >our current licence terms. You do not need to guarantee that it is, >but you risk having your contribution deleted (see below) if it is >not." > >not clear enough? The "You do not need to guarantee" surely says >it as plainly as one can reasonably expect. This doesn't really counteract the main thrust of the contributor terms which state that you grant a perpetual licence to do any act restricted by copyright, database right etc. That needs to change to say that you grant just enough rights to distribute the data under the currently-used licence, but you are not required to give carte blanche for future changes. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes: >> I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any >> compatibility problem. > >PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering, >attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand >this, while the tiles themselves might be quite unrestricted, the >contained data still won't be --- also under OdbL. Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under some interpretations. It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution requirement is more reasonable.) One of the main problems with the proposed ODbL/DbCL setup is that it's pretty murky what is allowed and what isn't allowed; and also quite unclear whether the things that are disallowed are truly enforceable, or just magic text which has no real weight. If OSM itself produced a public domain tileset, the clarity of the action would compensate a bit for the uncertainty of the licence; it would be clear for all that rendered map tiles can be distributed under any terms. >Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well? Quite possibly. In my view the attempt to shoehorn a map into a 'database' is not the best way to look at things; the distinction between 'database' and 'database contents' seems nonsensical in the case of map data, and indeed you can argue that a rendered map is just as much a 'derived database' as a 'produced work'. (I much prefer the simplicity of the CC-BY-SA licence where if it is subject to copyright, the licence applies, and if not, it doesn't. The scope of copyright is something that courts and legislation address directly, whereas the legal contortions of the ODbL will never be truly clarified unless a specific case goes to court.) -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 17 November 2010 17:23, Ed Avis wrote: > > This doesn't really counteract the main thrust of the contributor terms which > state that you grant a perpetual licence to do any act restricted by > copyright, > database right etc. That needs to change to say that you grant just enough > rights to distribute the data under the currently-used licence, but you are > not > required to give carte blanche for future changes. > I misunderstood your objection. My understanding of the current policy is that a contributor does permit OSMF to use a different (future) licence. That is the reason for the perpetual licence. If all that was needed was that OSMF could use the data under the existing licence, then you could have a CT just like the old CT's. NB: I don't have a view on this at all and am not trying to influence policy. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well? A database of pixels? I would not regard a printed map as a database. And neither would I the electronic version of that. One could argue about a "rendered" vector map. Matthias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes: > > >> I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any > >> compatibility problem. > > > >PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering, > >attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand > >this, while the tiles themselves might be quite unrestricted, the > >contained data still won't be --- also under OdbL. > > Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least > under > some interpretations. It's allowed to make proprietary, > all-rights-reserved > map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public > domain > one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution > requirement is more reasonable.) > ODbL does not contain any tracing restrictions. An early draft contained a no-reverse-engineering clause, but this was removed. ODbL does not impose any restrictions whatsoever over the *use* of a produced work. If I want to take a PD licensed copy of a produced work I can do whatever I like with it. Some people, including Jordan Hatcher, do believe that ODbL does not permit such freedom, but there's no words that I can see to that effect. The *only* rider on a produced work is a rather weak and non-viral attribution demand: "However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License." Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone tracing from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it. > > One of the main problems with the proposed ODbL/DbCL setup is that it's > pretty > murky what is allowed and what isn't allowed; and also quite unclear > whether the > things that are disallowed are truly enforceable, or just magic text which > has > no real weight. If OSM itself produced a public domain tileset, the > clarity of > the action would compensate a bit for the uncertainty of the licence; it > would > be clear for all that rendered map tiles can be distributed under any > terms. > > >Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well? > > Quite possibly. In my view the attempt to shoehorn a map into a 'database' > is > not the best way to look at things; the distinction between 'database' and > 'database contents' seems nonsensical in the case of map data, and indeed > you > can argue that a rendered map is just as much a 'derived database' as a > 'produced work'. > > (I much prefer the simplicity of the CC-BY-SA licence where if it is > subject to > copyright, the licence applies, and if not, it doesn't. The scope of > copyright > is something that courts and legislation address directly, whereas the > legal > contortions of the ODbL will never be truly clarified unless a specific > case > goes to court.) > > -- > Ed Avis > > > > ___ > 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] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone tracing > from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it. If tracing (a map) is considered copying (and that's a question of law which is not exactly clear), then the question is not what in the ODbL stops you from tracing, the question is what in the ODbL allows you to trace. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Anthony writes: >>The stated >>intention is "you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all", >>nothing about "we can therefore redistribute under practically any >>free licence including PD", and nothing about "you have made sure that >>your contributions are compatible with that". Why are you adding >>things that aren't there? > > I believe those are logical consequences of granting the perpetual licence > to do any act etc. How could it be? You can't grant a license over content you don't own, unless you have been given permission to sublicense it. > However, even if they are logical consequences and don't > strictly need to be stated, it would be good to add some redundant language > just so that things are totally clear. If that were the intent, it should be made clear. But again, I don't see how that is the intent. The intent seems clear. 1) You grant a license to do anything. You waive all your rights in all your contributions (but obviously not anyone else's). 2) You aren't violating anyone else's rights by contributing the data. 3) You're not aware of any reason that OSMF would not be allowed to redistribute the data under the *current* license terms, (though you do not guarantee this). 4) You understand that your data might be deleted in the future, either because the OSMF is not allowed to redistribute it under the current license, or because it isn't allowed to redistribute it under a future license. 5) OSMF agrees it will only license your data under ODbL, DbCL, CC-BY-SA, or some other license that the community agrees to. (And, recalling 4, if that future license is incompatible with third party copyrights, your data might be deleted.) > However, note that I said 'if' - *if* that is the intention, then the CTs > should say so. If the intention is something else, they should say that. > At the moment the intention is not entirely clear, if the confusion on this > list is anything to go by. Okay. I agree with that. So, if the intention of the CT is to do what I said above, how would you suggest clarifying this? How does YouTube do it? Maybe something like: "By granting us this license, You are not required to grant us a license over any content for which you are not the copyright holder."? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone > tracing > > from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it. > > If tracing (a map) is considered copying (and that's a question of law > which is not exactly clear), then the question is not what in the ODbL > stops you from tracing, the question is what in the ODbL allows you to > trace. > > ODbL specifically and explicitly gives you the right to create a Produced Work with which you can do whatever you like. The only restrictions are those specified in 4.3 as quoted above. If there were other restrictions you wouldn't be able to create a Produced Work that was publishable under PD, CC0, WTFPL, CC-BY-SA etc. > ___ > 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] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone >> > tracing >> > from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it. >> >> If tracing (a map) is considered copying (and that's a question of law >> which is not exactly clear), then the question is not what in the ODbL >> stops you from tracing, the question is what in the ODbL allows you to >> trace. >> > ODbL specifically and explicitly gives you the right to create a Produced > Work with which you can do whatever you like. Let's assume, for these purposes, that the person doing the tracing is not the same as the person who created the Produced Work. Is that fair? What gives the person doing the tracing the right to trace? Is the Database copyrighted? By tracing, are they copying a copyrightable portion of the Database? By tracing, are they extracting a substantial portion of the Database? If so, what gives them permission to do that? > The only restrictions are those specified in 4.3 as quoted above. The person creating the Produced Work is specifically prohibited from sublicensing the Database. So any license granted by the producer of the Produced Work is not a license on the underlying Database itself. > If there were other restrictions you wouldn't be able to create a Produced > Work that was publishable under PD, CC0, WTFPL, CC-BY-SA etc. You have permission to license the produced work, not the underlying database. See 4.8. Can you publish a Produced Work under CC-BY-SA? Personally, I don't think you meaningfully can. The only semi-reasonable argument I've heard that you can, came from an ODbL lawyer who basically said, yes, you can publish a Produced Work under CC-BY-SA, because CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to databases anyway. I think Ed Avis is right on that one, though. "It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution requirement is more reasonable.)" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
2010/11/17 Matthias Julius : > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well? > > A database of pixels? I would not regard a printed map as a database. > And neither would I the electronic version of that. > > One could argue about a "rendered" vector map. I think that this distinction is nonsense, a vector map has a certain resolution just like a georeferenced bitmap has. Is it possible to trace a bitmap map (therefore recreating vectors)? Definitely yes, even if this might no easily or at all be possible in automated manner (maybe if you have an "intelligent" program you might be able to do it automatically, but I don't know any proof for this). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes: > 2010/11/17 Matthias Julius : >> >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >>> Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well? >> >> A database of pixels? I would not regard a printed map as a database. >> And neither would I the electronic version of that. >> >> One could argue about a "rendered" vector map. > > I think that this distinction is nonsense, a vector map has a certain > resolution just like a georeferenced bitmap has. There is no reason for a vector map to have a lower resolution than the OSM data itself. But, this is not the point. The difference to a bitmap is that a vector image contains descrete objects which someone could import directly into a database. So, one could view a vector map as a database of map objects. Each .osm file already is a vector map. Matthias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: This doesn't really counteract the main thrust of the contributor terms which state that you grant a perpetual licence to do any act restricted by copyright, database right etc. That needs to change to say that you grant just enough rights to distribute the data under the currently-used licence, but you are not required to give carte blanche for future changes. I agree with Francis Davey that the current draft says this clearly enough. 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] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Francis Davey wrote: > It doesn't look "stalled" to me: > > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes Thanks, I didn't know about the minutes page (not that I had looked). > The current working draft license terms suggest this is not the view > taken by its drafters and they do not intend it to be the outcome: > > https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb True, when I compare it with version 1.0, that looks like the major change - explicitly not requiring the contributor to be the unencumbered copyright owner. So that part is good. However, this part remains: "Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright..." As Ben has pointed out, this section retains the assumption made previously: that you have the right to grant these rights. Which, under any CC licence, you don't. So, I guess we sit and continue to watch the evolution of the CTs. I understand that it is not trivial finding wording that meets everyone's needs. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On 18 November 2010 04:21, Steve Bennett wrote: > > However, this part remains: "Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You > hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a > worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence > to do any act that is restricted by copyright..." > > As Ben has pointed out, this section retains the assumption made > previously: that you have the right to grant these rights. Which, > under any CC licence, you don't. > In another thread elsewhere I said that I think that may just be a drafting error - in other words the intention is to qualify that sentence to make it clear that you only grant those rights you have (which is all you can ask a contributor to do). As drafted a court might imply such a condition anyway, but it is right to make it clear. But this can be done by adding a suitable phrase such as "to the extent that you are able" or "to the extent that you own any intellectual property in" (thought that would exclude licensees with a right to sublicense). -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
