Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 16:55, Ed Avis  wrote:
> I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
> CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
> requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF.  Then everyone 
> could
> just keep on mapping.

Until recently CC people were taking a contrary approach to what they
seem to be taking now, I can't help but think the timing more than
likely had something to do with the continuing debate over OSM-F
licenses.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Rob Myers]

On 08/04/11 07:55, Ed Avis wrote:
> I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
> CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
> requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF.  Then everyone 
> could
> just keep on mapping.

I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's
concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually
been announced yet.

- Rob.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Nick Hocking]

Hi Ed,

"transfer rights to the OSMF"

I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding
OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions.

This need to be finalised sooner rather than later so that OSM mapping can
recommence.
As to which licence we run under, it doesn't matter to me at all, since I
believe it should be public domain anyway.  I'll leave that for others to
bicker about but full rights to the data by the project is essential, in my
opinion.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 20:38, Nick Hocking  wrote:
> I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
> need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
> situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding
> OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions.

Which is something only done by commercial companies, most community
based projects have a fixed license, I'd love for someone to try and
push something like the CTs on kernel contributors and see how far
they got considering how strongly people are in favour of share a
like.

The flip side to your rhetoric is that people are holding OSM (the
community) hostage to force through their agenda in future.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, time period for reply to a new license change (active contributor)

[Ed Avis]

Michael Collinson  writes:

>- In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of
>at least several months of publicity and discussion before the final
>formal vote announcement.

An interesting question is whether the change from CC+ODbL dual
licensing to just ODbL by itself would count as such a major change.
(The proposed contributor terms talk about distributing the map under
both licences, and while they're not an explicit promise from the OSMF
to do that, it's one reasonable interpretation.)

If there were an open vote of contributors before dropping CC
licensing, many of the contributors currently unhappy with the
proposed licence change might reconsider.

At the moment there is something of a credibility gap because while we
are assured that any major licence change in future would have a
formal vote, that principle isn't being followed for the ODbL introduction.

--
Ed Avis 



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Kevin Peat]

On 8 April 2011 11:38, Nick Hocking  wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> "transfer rights to the OSMF"
>
> I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
> need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
> situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding
> OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions.
>
> The contributors aren't doing anything it is the OSMF that is holding the
data to ransom.


> This need to be finalised sooner rather than later so that OSM mapping can
> recommence.
>
The current license has worked well for many years with significant
transgressors (Google, Waze et al) respecting it. I would prefer OSM worked
with Creative Commons on 4.0 rather than deleting contributions.



> As to which licence we run under, it doesn't matter to me at all, since I
> believe it should be public domain anyway.  I'll leave that for others to
> bicker about but full rights to the data by the project is essential, in my
> opinion.
>
>
>
I read recently (not sure if true) that Libreoffice in their "fork" from
Openoffice had abandoned CT's and seen a big increase in contributors. I
wonder if introducing CT's will have the opposite impact on OSM.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Ed Avis]

Kevin Peat  writes:

>I read recently (not sure if true) that Libreoffice in their "fork" from
>Openoffice had abandoned CT's and seen a big increase in contributors. I wonder
>if introducing CT's will have the opposite impact on OSM.

I've seen this sentiment expressed: .
That is just one person, though.

I think all that can safely be said is that it doesn't help to attract mappers.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:

I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF.  Then everyone could
just keep on mapping.


I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's
concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually
been announced yet.


The noises emanating from CC seem to say basically that

1. certainly no CC-BY-SA 4.0 in 2011 and perhaps not even in 2012;
2. CC will not write licenses that restrict content over and above what 
is protected by law in any given country.


While I personally find #2 honourable - after all they are for open data 
and against adding restrictions so it does make sense - this would, in 
our specific case, mean that we have no solution for the problem that 
our data is not protected in the US.


Also, Ed, I think that your wording "transfer rights to the OSMF" wrong 
because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. 
One of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher 
of the database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in 
a position to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions 
like "can I do X", something that we cannot do today.


I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor 
Terms would still make a lot of sense.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> to transfer rights to the OSMF.

But, you still own rights to the data you contributed (you can give it
however you want to anybody else). You're just giving OSMF the
permission to release your data as part of a database.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, time period for reply to a new license change (active contributor)

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Michael Collinson  writes:
>
>>- In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of
>>at least several months of publicity and discussion before the final
>>formal vote announcement.

> At the moment there is something of a credibility gap because while we
> are assured that any major licence change in future would have a
> formal vote, that principle isn't being followed for the ODbL introduction.

The current license upgrade gives each contributor even more voice
than they would have in a vote, as they may choose to exclude their
contributions from future license considerations.  That you see a
"credibility gap" strains logic and ignores each of the votes, polls
and surveys to date.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

>Also, Ed, I think that your wording "transfer rights to the OSMF" wrong 
>because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. 

Eugene Alvin Villar also pointed this out; I should have written
'grant rights to the OSMF'.

>One of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher 
>of the database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in 
>a position to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions 
>like "can I do X", something that we cannot do today.

To me that doesn't sound like a wholly good thing.  But in any case, the licence
text matters more than answers to FAQs.  The OSMF might be able to grant extra
permissions, or to clarify the meaning of the licence in more liberal terms,
although I'd suggest this should require a contributor vote, since it is
effectively changing the licensing terms of the project.

>I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor 
>Terms would still make a lot of sense.

Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[80n]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people
>>> on
>>> CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data
>>> or
>>> requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF.  Then
>>> everyone could
>>> just keep on mapping.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's
>> concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually
>> been announced yet.
>
> The noises emanating from CC seem to say basically that
>
> 1. certainly no CC-BY-SA 4.0 in 2011 and perhaps not even in 2012;

So 4.0 will be ready long before OSM switches to ODbL then ;)


> 2. CC will not write licenses that restrict content over and above what is
> protected by law in any given country.
>
> While I personally find #2 honourable - after all they are for open data and
> against adding restrictions so it does make sense - this would, in our
> specific case, mean that we have no solution for the problem that our data
> is not protected in the US.

Is there any evidence that OSM data has been abused more in the US
than in any other country?

OSM has been around a long time now and time has shown that the
reasons for switching  to ODbL are unjustified.  Where is this threat
that ODbL is supposed to be protecting us from?

>
> Also, Ed, I think that your wording "transfer rights to the OSMF" wrong
> because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. One
> of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher of the
> database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in a position
> to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions like "can I do X",
> something that we cannot do today.

No, that's not correct.  Judges make authoritative interpretations of
license terms.  Not the people who own the IP or who wrote the
license.


>
> I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms
> would still make a lot of sense.
>
> 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] Compliance timeline

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/08/2011 05:05 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.


Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.


I was trying to say that even if we had that forward compatibility, we 
would still be better off with proper contributor terms.


For example, we have this situation now where we say "if you make a web 
application and display your layer in a separatable fashion over an OSM 
layer, this is not a derived work, but a collective work". Most of us 
agree that this is how we want to handle it, but there is nothing 
written in the license that says so, and even if all but one contributor 
agree on this, that one contributor could sue whoever does what I 
described for breach of license.


The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can actually make a 
reliable statement expressing the community interpretation of certain 
points of the license, rather than the current "well most people say 
this is so but of course we cannot guarantee anything".


This is a good thing because it removes obstacles to using OSM data, and 
should be pursued in any case, even if we chose to ultimately wait for 
CC-BY-SA 4. Of course introducing contributor terms would always mean we 
have to go through the process we're currently going through, so the 
automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA wouldn't help us in terms of 
having to ask everybody, risk data loss, and so on.


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

>For example, we have this situation now where we say "if you make a web 
>application and display your layer in a separatable fashion over an OSM 
>layer, this is not a derived work, but a collective work".

>The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can actually make a 
>reliable statement expressing the community interpretation of certain 
>points of the license, rather than the current "well most people say 
>this is so but of course we cannot guarantee anything".

Yes - if this interpretation is the more liberal one.  OSMF would not be in a
position to state that putting a layer on top *does* make a derived work, if the
licence text and copyright case law said otherwise.  Well, they could state it,
but would have to go to court to see if they were correct.

>This is a good thing because it removes obstacles to using OSM data, and 
>should be pursued in any case, even if we chose to ultimately wait for 
>CC-BY-SA 4.

It's unfortunate that the proposed contributor terms and the proposed new 
licence
have been bundled into one all-or-nothing process.  It would make more sense to
first get agreement on granting extra rights to the OSMF, and if that's accepted
by the community, then go through the 2/3 vote process for any licence change.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.04.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Avis:

Frederik Ramm  writes:


I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.

Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.



Actually it wouldn't.

The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers, 
representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, 
that specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new 
license. As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 
2.0 would only be effective for a licensee (that received the data under 
2.0) that wants to distribute the data under a higher version.


Since the pre-CT terms can at least be read differently than the current 
OSMF interpretation, it is a least open to dispute if the same wouldn't 
apply for mappers data that haven't relicensed yet



IANAL

Simon

PS: in an hour or so, we will be over 10'000 explicit acceptances of the CTs
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Ed Avis]

Simon Poole  writes:

>The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
>representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
>specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
>As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be
>effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to
>distribute the data under a higher version.

Interesting.  So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways
that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF 
under
CC-BY-SA 2.0.  I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision
in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified.

If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is
free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three?
(according to your reading of the proposed CTs)

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Francis Davey]

On 8 April 2011 18:10, Ed Avis  wrote:
>
> Interesting.  So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways
> that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF 
> under
> CC-BY-SA 2.0.  I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade 
> provision

That much is clear. The CT's impose various obligations on OSMF beyond
those under CC-BY-SA, in particular

> in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified.

Yes.

Assuming we are talking about:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

Clause 3 restricts OSMF to a specific set of licences.

>
> If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is
> free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three?
> (according to your reading of the proposed CTs)
>

They don't so specify. The list is disjunctive:

"only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL
1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the
database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence ..."

So OSMF may use any subset (including the empty set) of such licences.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.04.2011 19:10, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poole  writes:


The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be
effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to
distribute the data under a higher version.

Interesting.  So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways
that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF 
under
CC-BY-SA 2.0.  I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision
in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified.


IMHO mappers licensing their data to the OSMF under CC-by-SA is not a 
useful concept, nor was it ever.  And if it is just because the license 
simply can't apply to the majority of contributions.


But I digress. Since in the arrangement between the mappers and the OSMF 
specific versions of the licenses are listed, it is clear that these 
cannot be changed without a vote. BTW a very good thing.


In any case as I pointed out before, the upgrade clauses allow 
recipients of the data to use a higher version of the license when 
-they- distribute the licensed object, they cannot affect the internal 
arrangements between the mappers and the OSMF.



If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is
free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three?
(according to your reading of the proposed CTs)

It's two licenses, not three. The way I read it, parallel dual licensing 
would be possible.


But again IANAL.

Simon

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