Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 18 April 2011 02:13, Anthony wrote: > > Presumably they would point out that the incorrect part of your > reasoning is that "Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and > cannot be anything else." > > Redistribution under a license is not sublicensing. I'm not even > quite sure how you'd construe them to be the same. If I give you > permission to (re)distribute my work under a license, I am not giving > you permission to sublicense that work. > Obviously we mean different things by "sub-license". Can you explain what you understand it to mean? If X licenses a work to Y under licence L1 and Y licences the same work to Z under licence L2 where Y's right to give L2 is given under L1 then L2 is a sublicence of L1. That is the situation you are describing. And that is (as I understand it) what "sublicence" means. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms: errors in the Italian translation
There are some errors in the Italian translation of the contributor terms https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms License names contains typos: * ODbl sould be ODbL (the case) * DdCL should be DbCL (b instead of d) The phrase "le quali saranno si intenderanno approvate con il voto" should be "le quali si intenderanno approvate con il voto" (a verb is repeated). I also suggest to embed a link the the legal text of the licenses. I know Simone Cortesi - which made the translation - is off-line for a while. So someone else should fix it. I don't have write access to the pages, if I can help let me know how. -- Niccolo Rigacci Firenze - Italy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
> >> That is the situation you are describing. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the situation you are describing", but Ah, this is where we are probably at cross purposes. I am sorry for that - its been a long thread. 80n's original query concerned uploading work to OSMF by someone who has agreed to the contributor terms. That is a sublicence (because it is expressed that way) and that is something which CC-BY-SA does not permit (I think we agree on that point). > it's not how CC-BY-SA works, since CC-BY-SA specifically says that it > does not grant permission to sublicense. Instead "Each time You > Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the > recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and > conditions as the license granted to You under this License." > ... and my mistake, yes of course the right to sublicense applies only to derivative works. Under the US 3.0 at least, the CC licence grants a right to sublicence derivative works but not the original work. > Under CC-BY-SA, X licenses the work to Y, Z, and any other third > party, granting permission to distribute the work under [the terms of] > L1, L2, or any other Compatible License. The licenses to the > contributions of X come from X, not from Y. > Yes. > If Y made modifications to the work, Y's license covers only Y's > modifications. If Z then makes modifications, Z's license covers only No. Y's licence covers the whole of the derived work. X's licence covers all the work as not modified by Y. Z benefits from both those licences as against the respective licensors, which makes sense. > Z's modifications. I assume the reason this is done is to simplify the > chain of title, and also to avoid complications with copyright > transfers, inheritance, infringements, etc. On the "why" though maybe > a CC list would be the best place to ask. > Yes, that was my understanding. The CC model is a new licence to all users of the work from the original licensor which avoids problems with chain of title. To the extent that CC licences are not contracts this is fine. Certainly in the UK CC doesn't rely on contract to work. I suspect there are more difficulties with ODbL style contract-reliant effects to third parties of this kind. Anyway, as you say this is fairly off topic and not what 80n asked. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen > wrote: > > Thanks Grant, > > > > I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe > > unclear: > > > > What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor > > terms mean: > > > >> From CT 1.2.4/2 > >> " These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude > > any > >> field of endeavour." > > > > As written down it seems opposite to the OSMF statutes and memorandum... > > Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered > "open knowledge" according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . > Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's > probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. “commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 04/18/2011 10:06 PM, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered "open knowledge" according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. “commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. Since there are licences that explicitly exclude commercial use that used in projects branded "open" (OpenCourseWare being a particularly egregious example of this) it is worthwhile mentioning commercial use, however vague it is as a concept. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:12:24PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > >“commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to > >be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just > >allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. > > Since there are licences that explicitly exclude commercial use that > used in projects branded "open" (OpenCourseWare being a particularly > egregious example of this) it is worthwhile mentioning commercial > use, however vague it is as a concept. Next, we’ll all be jumping off a cliff because a few lemmings do it (but they can swim), or just following the rest of the sheep. Sometimes that’s a godd thing, many free software licences have done without mentioning commercial use, and other than by others spouting FUD they have not restricted it either. The only “restriction” I have seen is that some software developers perceive reciprocal licences as a hindrance because the reciprocal licenses prevent them from removing freedoms from the end user. The GPL doesn’t explicitly mention “commercial” distribution (except for when providing an offer of source code), but does say that charging for the software is not excluded. I think that is far less ambiguous. The Apache licence v2 similarly doesn’t use the term “commercial” (except in the limitation of liability clause), and mentions charging a fee (for idemnity, warranty, among others). It doesn’t explicitly mention “commercial use” because it doesn’t need to. Those are just two examples, there are many more. If the CTs or license must mention some form of “commercial” distribution, I would much rather they explicitly say that you may charge a fee for distribution than use the term “commercial”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 18/04/11 22:41, Simon Ward wrote: > > The only “restriction” I have seen is that some software developers > perceive reciprocal licences as a hindrance because the reciprocal > licenses prevent them from removing freedoms from the end user. Yes they never seem to work out that they are users as well. > The GPL doesn’t explicitly mention “commercial” distribution (except for > when providing an offer of source code), but does say that charging for > the software is not excluded. I think that is far less ambiguous. The CTs are more similar to the FSD than the GPL. The FSD states: "“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. " http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
