Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16 June 2011 21:08, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote: > >> Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future >> relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the >> terms seen to be required by the OS (currently attribution, if I've >> understood correctly). >> > > So after a few years we might have data in our database that was given to > someone with the explicit restriction that it may only ever be distributed > under OdbL. Sufficient for the person to contribute the data to OSM under > the current CT. A future license change would then need a crystal ball to > single out that data set (the contributor might not even be available for > communication any longer) and determine that it has to be removed. > More importantly, the current license is CC-BY-SA not ODbL. Does that mean someone who has agreed to the Contributor Terms is allowed to upload CC-BY-SA data which can't be re-licensed to ODbL? If so, how is the re-licensing problem only an issue for the future? Wouldn't it be an issue for changing from CC-BY-SA to ODbL, since we know which people have agreed to the CTs but not if their data can be re-licensed? As far as I can tell, the 1.2.4 CTs don't give OSMF any more permission to license data under ODbL than it gives them to license it under any "other free and open licence" as ODbL is not mentioned in any other place than in the list that includes the phrase "other free and open licence". -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: +1 /2 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
+1 Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Verzonden: donderdag 7 juli 2011 19:55 Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > But that doesn't mean that "their" content won't show up in a future ODBL > map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but > perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that > you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a "legal" > imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 19:55, John Smith wrote: On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger wrote: But that doesn't mean that "their" content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a "legal" imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? Thanks for your answer. No more questions. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [OSM-dev] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 07/07/2011 07:41, Anthony wrote: Thanks Toby. I'm forwarding this to Dave Fox, who is the one who actually asked the question. It follows pretty naturally out of the database schema. Anything that modifies the ways, way_tags or way_nodes tables creates a new version of the way. Things that only affect the node tables such as moving the location of a node or changing tags on the node do not affect any of the way tables so no new version is created. The same thing happens with relations and their members. You can add a maxspeed= tag to a way and it doesn't affect the relation that way is a part of. That would actually make touching long route relations a conflict nightmare so I'm pretty glad this isn't the case. Thanks to Anthony for asking & Toby for responding. However that just explains what happens but not why. I suggest that, to most users, if a node within a way is moved then that way is considered to have been modified & should be recorded as such. Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 08:48, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote: Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think map content is protected under copyright. But I've just showed you that there are countries where this is clearly not the case. You've done nothing of the sort. I know it's not a good idea to post a German text on a English mailing list, but the link I've posted says that in Austria a map is not protected by copyright if it just reproduces geographical facts. This is the general view of the highest court in my country. Here is one example where this general rule was applied (sorry it's again in German): http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_000/JJT_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_000.html Short summary: A map publishing company produced a map of the state Lower Austria (Oberösterreich) which showed all camping grounds within the state. The state itself was shown in another colour than the neighbouring states. Another organisation reduced the size of the map, desaturated it and published it without attribution. The plaintiff lost. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 09:35, 80n wrote: Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. But that doesn't mean that "their" content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a "legal" imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 08:39, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Andreas Perstinger No (see above). But I think it's more a question of morality and adhering to community guidelines. Legally I don't see any problems using informations from any map (or aerial imagery). But using information isn't the same as copying. That's why I've written "using information" on purpose :-). For me copying would be using the same map style (colours, symbols,...). Some jurisdictions don't allow this, mine expects a certain individual creativity. Getting information out of an imagery or a map and entering it into OSM is not copying (in the sense of producing an object identical to a given object). Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 08:58, Frederik Ramm wrote: when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork". I know who "John Smith" and his fellows are and I even read their mailing list once or twice a month out of curiosity :-). Or, to say it with fewer words: don't waste your time. I can assure you I have enough time. For example I will leave now for a three hours bike ride :-). Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
+1 Frederik has not shown much respect for any argument nor to anyone that disagrees with the future commercialisation of OSM. (with that I means making OSM optimally fit for commercial use; disregarding the open principles that OSM started with: leaving out the Share Alike principle) I think this discussion about copyright is really valuable, seen from the perspective of copyright laws around the world, and the ongoing legal differentiation between databases filled with facts and those filled with creative works, where the latter are supposed copyrightable and the earlier are not. Legal discusiions are going on everywhere in the world, and are supported by legal cases in several places around the world confirming the distinciton between factual databases (of which the content is not copyrightable) and creative databases (copyrightble). John thinks different about this then I, though we both support continuing the CC-BY-SA forks, that I believe will change into PD one day due to the above legal interpretations. FOSM will not have deleted the data the OSM will at that time. Frederik, I believe it is way below your professional level to respond like this. Anyone is free to spend its time discusiing this issues, and ignoring it will not make them diasappear. If international copyrigth laws will change as i expect, OSM be better prepared, and not be surprised. Simon, stop scratching frederiks back. no need to apologise. Gert cetest @ fosm.org Van: 80n [mailto:80n...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:36 AM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork". The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the "old OSM", or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Frederik, I'm sure you've been paying attention an know full well that the reason fosm.org exists is because we have grave concerns about the new license. The only thing we are forking is the license, we are not forking the tagging scheme or the community or even the objectives of OSM. Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. A main objective of OSM was to create maps that were free enough to be used by everyone. Anything that steps across the line will taint OSM with the impurity that we strived for so long to avoid. There will forever be doubt about the provenance of OSM data. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Simon, > Andreas, > all, > > when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of > "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time > building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork". > > The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of > motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss > - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that > they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the "old OSM", or even > dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. > Frederik, I'm sure you've been paying attention an know full well that the reason fosm.org exists is because we have grave concerns about the new license. The only thing we are forking is the license, we are not forking the tagging scheme or the community or even the objectives of OSM. Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. A main objective of OSM was to create maps that were free enough to be used by everyone. Anything that steps across the line will taint OSM with the impurity that we strived for so long to avoid. There will forever be doubt about the provenance of OSM data. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid getting sucked in to his endless threads. But it was 2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I needed a short break :-) Simon Am 07.07.2011 08:58, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork". The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the "old OSM", or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Now if it turned out that the license change went through like a breeze, with very limited data loss that is patched up within weeks, they would become a laughing stock - like the prophet without the doom. While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for starting a fork in the first place. Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good basis for a rational argument. Or, to say it with fewer words: don't waste your time. 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm wrote: > While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, > their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data > deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for > starting a fork in the first place. And what is it you wish by forcing bad terms into the CT just so OSM might be able to go PD in future, although some of those abilities have been lost in the process it would seem, you seem to be a firm believer in PD, why are you settling for second best all of a sudden? I guess the thought of excessive data loss was unpalatable after all. > Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good > basis for a rational argument. It seems the only one basing arguments on emotive language in this thread is yourself, glass houses and not throwing stones and all that. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork". The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the "old OSM", or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Now if it turned out that the license change went through like a breeze, with very limited data loss that is patched up within weeks, they would become a laughing stock - like the prophet without the doom. While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for starting a fork in the first place. Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good basis for a rational argument. Or, to say it with fewer words: don't waste your time. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
