[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi everyone! To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT: 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, I don't have permission to change nature of the license. About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done, what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not. Cheers, Peter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone! To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT: 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, I don't have permission to change nature of the license. About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done, what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not. If osm were to add this, then they would not have to relicense everything and not have to ask everyone to agree. :D, mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
- Original Message - From: pec...@gmail.com To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:01 AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources Hi everyone! To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT: 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, I don't have permission to change nature of the license. About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done, what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not. Peter I believe yours is essentially the same point raised by me on 17 Nov at 13:31, then repeated by Andrzej Zaborowski on 20 Nov at 20:24, and which has not yet been answered. Coincidentally I was going to email the LWG about it today, but since you have raised it on the list here, I will refrain from asking the LWG direct for now. Regards David Cheers, Peter. ___ 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] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL
I believe the question is whether the OSMF should have special rights which
are not available to others.
If you look again at the explanation of the OSMF's role:
It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not the
same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own the
OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the
data. Anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data using the same
or different software. In this respect the Foundation is an organisation
that performs fundraising in order to provides servers to host the project.
Its role is to support the project, not to control it.
A key point is that 'anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data'.
If that is so, then the contributor terms should not need to mention OSMF
specifically - not unless the OSMF is trying to gain rights which others lack.
If a particular licence, be it CC-BY-SA, ODbL or whatever, is considered
suitable for the project then it must grant enough permissions to host a
website with the map, make changes, distribute them further and so on. That
being so, it is not necessary to have additional rights assignment to OSMF or
anyone else.
Some may consider this viewpoint to be quite impractical. However, it is how
the project is working now, and seems to be successful.
I've seen this point discussed many times before. The CT's do not
transfer ownership.
Technically this is true, but the grant of rights is so broad ('any action
restricted by copyright') and the limitations of 'any free and open licence'
and a vote of 'active contributors' are so loosely specified, that it amounts
to almost the same thing in practice.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony schrieb: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but IANAL, so I really can't explain details. I just know that very (to me) believable and knowing sources here have clearly stated repeatedly that using CC-BY-SA for our data collection is equivalent to PD in some major jurisdictions in this world, while ODbL isn't (and though I fully would accept working under PD, I find it unfair that people have different permissions to use our data depending on where they live). Robert Kasier ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony: Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. Failing that, have a read of the previous conversations on this subject that you have participated in on this list and let us know what you are pretending not to understand this time. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but IANAL, so I really can't explain details. Okay, well, I'm just letting you know that you're wrong. A contract doesn't apply to people who haven't accepted it. If you can't show why something is true, you really shouldn't be basing your arguments on it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL
On 09/12/10 13:27, Ed Avis wrote:
I've seen this point discussed many times before. The CT's do not
transfer ownership.
Technically this is true,
Legally it is true.
but the grant of rights is so broad ('any action
restricted by copyright') and the limitations of 'any free and open licence'
and a vote of 'active contributors' are so loosely specified, that it amounts
to almost the same thing in practice.
What it amounts to is a loss of *control*.
But a proportionate measure of that control is reintroduced through the
open membership of OSMF and the voting mechanism described in the CTs.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Anthony: Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. I think you're confusing me. I'm not the one claiming that data is PD in some jurisdictions. Robert Kaiser is. He said We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P It wasn't my claim, so I don't know what jurisdictions he was talking about. And to be more specific, I don't believe there is any jurisdiction in which OSM, in its entirety, is PD. I do know that unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States. But I also know that OSM is not merely an unorganized collection of facts. Certain excerpts of it are, but not the entirety. Finally, to explain my point, unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States *regardless of whether or not you try to pretend they aren't by slapping the ODbL on top of them*. A contract is not binding upon people who have not accepted it, and there is absolutely no way OSM can force everyone who gets a copy of OSM to accept a contract. Even if they forced everyone who downloads OSM from planet.openstreetmap.org to click on I agree, they can't stop third parties from running mirrors where there is no such click-through. Failing that, have a read of the previous conversations on this subject that you have participated in on this list and let us know what you are pretending not to understand this time. What subject would that be? Can you narrow my search? Or were you just misunderstanding my point? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote: About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority of us in the project are open data, open source and free software advocates. To us 'Free' means libré gratis and 'open' is being able to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on our terms. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 12/9/10, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that, even more than free and open, share-alike is a term that is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will already have written half a new license. Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that you received it. Any variation on that, like for example, being able to distribute some part under different terms is share-different, not share-alike. Simple. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
2010/12/9 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Peter, pec...@gmail.com wrote: 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and share alike. Do you have a concrete example of a third-party source that does not specify a concrete license, but requests a general attribution and share alike? Or is this only theoretical? No, there are several real life cases for this. One case for attribution, another for both attribution and share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, I don't have permission to change nature of the license. In the original setup, data that is not compatible with the CT would not be accepted, so if someone required attribution and share-alike, that data would not be compatible. Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community. Anyway, I understand your reasoning, i just want to find a solution to keep as much data as possible in this migration between license regime changes. The current mood in LWG (as per the latest CT draft) seems to be to allow such data in provisionally, i.e. you may contribute the data with some sort of flag (no idea about technicalities) that says if the license is ever changed then this data must be removed or so. That would be a very good starting point for compromise. In fact, I don't say that we couldn't get third-party data owners to relicense their stuff accordingly to PD or else (if license is changed), *problem* is that we don't have much change to do it in nearest future (1 - 2 years). But it is doable (although only working on political level). Anyway, please keep us informed about this. If such option will exist, that would be good solution. Since your argument in this posting was not that you personally require share-alike but you were concerned only about entering third-party data, I would much rather have *less* third-party data and *more* liberty for the project in the future, than *more data for the price of reduced liberty later. This would be like taking out a mortgage on what OSM is in 10 years. We would risk long-term problems for a short-term effect. Well, there is a problem - I create map for *today*. Now, we need a good, solid map. OSM is way to do it. Yes, there are sources which are PD and free and you can do whatever you want with it. But there are also very valuable sources which comes with restrictions. For time these restrictions matched our current license. Now we have to abandon and clean out these sources because license of OSM might change in the future. Now we want to make OSM ideal. Well, it is nice aim, but what worries is this - isn't that possible that these good intentions will just kill OSM? Reality is still there - there are lot of third-party sources which will be untouchable for us just because we have such ideal aim. That worries me. Anyway, thanks for great and detailed reply, I will wait for news about temporary limit flag for data, Cheers, Peter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, 80n wrote: Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that you received it. According to *that* definition, ODbL is not a share-alike license. The poster to whom I replied, however, seemed to be of the opinion that data he receives under the provision share alike only was ODbL compatible. Not even CC-BY-SA is a share-alike license according to your definition because you may distribute data received under CC-BY-SA under a higher version of the license, which may contain whatever terms Creative Commons deem suitable. So either your simple definition of share-alike is correct and everyone in real life is doing it wrong. Or maybe it is too simple. Which was precisely the point I was trying to make. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, pec...@gmail.com wrote: Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community. ODbL has lots of properties - it is a contract, a license, it is share-alike (according to some definitions!), it is free and open, it is maintained by an institution in England, it is based (in part) on database right, it does not cover patents... If a future license change should be deemed necessary by 2/3 of the active mappers according to CT, they will choose a suitable replacement. The CT says that the free and open property must be kept. The others need not be kept. It makes sense for the CT to list the required properties of the potential new license, instead of listing those that ODbL has but which are not required of the new license, or else the CT would become too long. If you think that some people do not fully understand section three of the contributor terms - namely that *any* free and open license can be choosen by 2/3 of the active mappers - then maybe the contributor terms need in fact be made more explicit. I would however not recommend to put something in there that says: For the avoidance of doubt, such license does not necessarily have to have what, at the time of writing this agreement, is known as an 'attribution' or 'share alike' clause because that would unnecessarily upset people; they would think there's a secret plan to go PD at the next possible opportunity, when in fact the non-requirement of share-alike is more something that gives us greater flexibility for the future. Personally I'd expect any future license to be something similar to ODbL which is share alike at the core, but makes some exceptions where things are deemed unimportant. Any such license would probably not pass a strict ... must have a share alike clause ... unless one was being cheeky and saying that having a share-alike clause is already fulfilled by a license that has a clause regulating the effect of share-alike. You see, even speculating about potential wording gets us into a mire of definitions. And that's all from our (today's) point of view. 10 years ago, I believe, the term share-alike wasn't even used; people said copyleft back then. Who knows what we will be talking about in 2020? Well, there is a problem - I create map for *today*. Now, we need a good, solid map. OSM is way to do it. Yes, there are sources which are PD and free and you can do whatever you want with it. But there are also very valuable sources which comes with restrictions. For time these restrictions matched our current license. Now we have to abandon and clean out these sources because license of OSM might change in the future. Many of these sources will also change their licenses over time. It is a very interesting topic, maybe for another time, what happens if you import data from a share-alike source today but in 5 years the data source goes PD. Will the data you have imported now have to be deleted and re-imported to take advantage of the greater flexibility, or can it just be switched? 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
The city of San Francisco has made a bunch of geo data available. I plan on importing the address nodes so that we can have door to door routing for San Francisco and for geocoding purposes. I just want to see if the click through is compatible. My understanding is that the data is basically public domain and the agreement is mostly a hold harmless type of thing. This is based on my reading of it and what they city has told me they intend it to be. I have asked about this before and there were problems but the city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. Thoughts? Cheers, Greg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on our terms. Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources Peter, pec...@gmail.com wrote: 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it; 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed; My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and share alike. Do you have a concrete example of a third-party source that does not specify a concrete license, but requests a general attribution and share alike? Or is this only theoretical? While ODbL is good enough for both of these things (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data, I don't have permission to change nature of the license. In the original setup, data that is not compatible with the CT would not be accepted, so if someone required attribution and share-alike, that data would not be compatible. The current mood in LWG (as per the latest CT draft) seems to be to Whilst a mood might to some people be enough, it would be fair to point out that it's not legally binding. allow such data in provisionally, i.e. you may contribute the data with some sort of flag (no idea about technicalities) that says if the license is ever changed then this data must be removed or so. Actually that's not what the current draft says at all. The draft says the data may be deleted. Not must, not will be, simply that it may be. This leaves the door open to the fact that the data might not be deleted. Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if: (a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and (b) There was a guarntee that usch data WOULD be removed, and there is no such guarantee. About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done, what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not. I don't think there's a plan to change the free and open. You are not asking for a clarification, you are asking for additional restrictions (as there are many free and open licenses that are not attribution or share-alike); such additional restrictions would constitute an undue liability for the people who are OSM in the future. (I think it is possible that a reference to a widely accepted definition of the terms free and open might be included, as a clarification, but as I said, you are not asking for clarification.) On the whole, if one wants to accept imports that are ODbL comaptible but not CT compatible, I think the opt-out version causes less damage than trying to toughen up the CT which might cause all kinds of problems in the future, but I don't like either. Imagine our current data came under some sort of CT that said the license may be changed but the new license must be attribution and share alike. Now *you* say that ODbL is ok for you, but ODbL does make exemptions from share-alike (namely, for non-substantial extracts for which attribution and share-alike are dropped, and for produced works, for which at leas the share-alike is dropped). I am pretty sure that under such hypothetical CTs, a license change to ODbL would not be possible. I think that, even more than free and open, share-alike is a term that is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will already have written half a new license. Licenses interact with their legal surroundings; some things we see in ODbL (the non-substantial extracts e.g.) are a direct refelction of the database directive. The legal surroundings can change, and if we have to change the license in the future then a new license might have to reflect the new situation. Any sort of cast-in-stone share-alike requirement will be an unnecessary burden. In another post, I have tried to make the point that it would also be morally wrong (unfair) against our future colleagues in this project to limit their choices. Since your argument in this posting was not that you personally require share-alike but you were concerned only about entering third-party data, I would much rather have *less* third-party data and *more* liberty for the project in the future, than *more data for the price of reduced liberty later. This would be like taking out a mortgage on what OSM is in 10 years. We would risk long-term problems for a short-term effect. Bye Frederik
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi, David Groom wrote: Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if: (a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and (b) There was a guarntee that usch data WOULD be removed, and there is no such guarantee. As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. You're right in that nobody guarantees that data would be removed in the event of a change of license, but I don't think that this puts the contributor in legal peril. I don't see any problem on the contributor's side. Where I see the problems with this approach is on the OSMF side. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources Hi, David Groom wrote: Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if: (a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to be removed , and there is no such mechanism; and (b) There was a guarntee that usch data WOULD be removed, and there is no such guarantee. As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. You're right in that nobody guarantees that data would be removed in the event of a change of license, but I don't think that this puts the contributor in legal peril. I don't see any problem on the contributor's side. Where I see the problems with this approach is on the OSMF side. The problem I have from a contributors side is that if, as a contributor I know there is no guarantee that incompatible data will be removed should a licence change occur, and if I know that given the current OSM set up there is in fact no technical mechanism that such data could be identified in the first place, then am I legally in a position to submit such data if I have agreed to the CT's (and /or can I agree to the CT's having submitted such data in the past). Then of course there is the moral question as to whether I believe it would be right to submit such data. David Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote: Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards the people than any central body, including OSMF. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. Or whatever licence takes its place should ⅔ of “active” contributors decide. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote: On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote: About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority of us in the project are open data, open source and free software advocates. To us 'Free' means libré gratis and 'open' is being able to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on our terms. If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
