Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote: If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly OSM community can help your resolve the problem of not agreeing with yourself. ;-) PD is only compatible in the sense that another person can take the data and upload it to OSM. But you don't have a contract with the OSMF and so you can't upload it yourself. For the record CC-By-SA is compatible with the new Contributor Terms much like public domain is. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
The discussion is not about comparing to google or Wikimapia CT. It's not because one is bad the other should be bad alike. is about not trusting (and thus assuring by a CT) your OSM contributors, and about not trusting the users (by using a unnecessary restrictive license compared to PD) that they will use the data. It's about a new way of thinking that I believe should go with open data. It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion only is about what license. The most thorough argument has been argument has about attribution that might me forgotten ( my god, how many times does (y)our ego need to be attributed to be satisfied) and some control freaks shouting I do not want google to steal our data which is complete nonsense. They already steal our data, and apologise only when discovered. Like we steal their data in a very unsystematic and fragmented way (user by user , street by street , poi by poi.). Yes Henk, examples do not have a direct relation, they are examples only no need to ask what the relation is, if you do not understand it, just ignore, others do. CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest version includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new, unknown and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain path. Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and reduces the amount of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning. (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation) The chances of a CC-BY-SA being challenged in court are indeed much less, I believe. I do not know the story about the 10 virgins. May be it's like OdBL, new and unknown ? The OSMF is preparing actions ? What actions ? That is an empty phrase (peptalk). Regards, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Henk Hoff [mailto:o...@toffehoff.nl] Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:51 AM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Op 10-08-11 12:33, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schreef: To all It's all a matter of trust. A) Trusting contributors and b) trusting the users of OSM data. The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody, and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty, by creating licenses and contributor terms. Have you actually *read* the CT? Trust nobody? The OSMF asks of its contributors that they only contribute stuf which they are allowed to. The OSMF promises that the collective will always be published with a free and open license. Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you agree every time you use one of its services. It will probably take a long time for those seeking this way that it is a way without issue. First because legal certainty does not exist in a society where justice is dominated by (financial) power. ( see Dominique Strauss Kahn case for a recent example ) What has this to do with OSM? Second because the legal certainty created by the CT is uncertain because it is badly written, and one needs not be a specialist to understand that; and the use of OdBl is so unprecedented that we are completely unclear if it will hold in ANY case but the simplest. Do you claim that CC-BY-SA does not need a specialist to understand it? Third because we don't not have the financial means to maintain the license in even the smallest case. Like mentioned before, we're not maintaining the license. ODbL is maintained by Open Data Commons, whereas the CC is maintained by Creative Commons. Not the OSMF. OSMF will probably go bankrupt on the first case against an fraudulent user of the data. Are you suggesting that with sticking with CC-BY-SA we don't have such a problem? (if we have it at all) You ever read the story of the emperor's new clothes ? (=read CT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes I know the story. However, another story comes to mind with me. Ever read the parable of the ten virgins? It's about being prepared for what's coming. The OSMF is taking actions needed to keep the project running for years to come. Gert Henk Oh, wait a minute... In a previous message you made it perfectly clear you don't trust me Why am I even replying ___ 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] I want my access back
Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: ... It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion only is about what license. A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use our data, the license could be CC0, but still a license. Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to deal with them. CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest version includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new, unknown and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain path. Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and reduces the amount of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning. (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation) They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for databases. AFAIK we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing the license in the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a mechanism for doing exactly that). And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go away, we need contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation in to account, not make believe stuff. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Thanks Simon for your constructive reply. (contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll) But the EC directive does not oblige us to license data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF. If we choose for no-license or just PD (give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that. That is why I said: the necessity of a license has never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental threads). I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the people of this world if our license terms are minimized (so PD). And at the input side (CT) we need to build trust that the number of non-PD contributions will be neglectable. Some may call that naïve, but the principle of open data was naïve too, once. I strongly believe that there are tools for that (explaining, correcting and explaining) that actually work, contradictory to obliging innocent people to sign an intimidating CT of which the consequences to them are unknown (the current CT) and have not yet been tested in court an for which we lack the financial means to really enforce them. And No, not because wikiwhatever or Google or any other organization does the same we need to mimic that. And for those who say : why did you sign up for CC-BY-SA then ? CC-BY-SA is the current situation, to be honest, 5 years ago I did not know what CC-BY-SA meant, and we certainly did not sign a corresponding CT at the time. I am unbound by a CT and free and intend to stay that. And I will never sign an agreement that legally binds me and puts me in a legal risky situation for things that I *give* to OSM. I may consider a CT for data that I provide if I was paid for it, but I'll never put my life at risk for nothing. Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:57 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: ... It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion only is about what license. A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use our data, the license could be CC0, but still a license. Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to deal with them. CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest version includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new, unknown and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain path. Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and reduces the amount of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning. (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation) They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for databases. AFAIK we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing the license in the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a mechanism for doing exactly that). And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go away, we need contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation in to account, not make believe stuff. Simon ___ 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] I want my access back
So by citing my e-mail without a license, you made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually republishing copyrighted work May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived work ? And I can sue you because, contrary to maps in dbase format that represent the real world (facts: ok there is no consensus about that yet) my words are copyrighted by default. There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of intellectual property ! I must admit that at least your attributed my words ! Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:42 PM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Am 11.08.2011 12:00, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: Thanks Simon for your constructive reply. (contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll) But the EC directive does not oblige us to license data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF. If we choose for no-license or just PD (give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that. That is why I said: the necessity of a license has never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental threads). The default condition is that your rights to your work of art, database (even in the case of the sui generis database rights) etc. are protected. If you want to allow somebody to use your work, you have to grant them the rights to do so, this is called a license. Even in the extreme case of essentially allowing everything to be done by anybody, you still have to state this. In the many countries that do not have an PD equivalent, this again boils down to a license. I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the people of this world if our license terms are minimized (so PD). So do I, but that is a completely different discussion. The compromise between the PD and the viral share-a-like license fractions is the ODbL, trying to undo that will -not- result in a PD OSM database. Simon ___ 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] I want my access back
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schrieb: So by citing my e-mail without a license, you made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually republishing copyrighted work No, only if it wasn't properly cited, as (AFAIK) most IP laws require you to point out who is the author unless the author states otherwise. There is no infringement if you state who owns the copyright over what you republish - the actual reason for creating copyright in the first place was to make sure proper attribution is given. May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived work ? That it would be, AFAIK, yes. There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of intellectual property ! True, and that's what CTs and a license are for! BTW, if you would want to change OSM to be PD, you probably would need to wipe the map clean and restart from scratch, as most contributors want an attribution to the project at least - and that's what's not guaranteed with current CC-BY-SA due to not applying for databases appropriately in some jurisdictions. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 11/08/11 16:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: I see no difference in re-publishing text, as in our email lists and the database, properly citing Google as source. You are correct. Both are breaches of copyright where it applies. There are two important differences though. Firstly custom and fair use are on the side of quoting emails in conversations. Secondly, Google haven't taken all your maps and incorporated them but you have quoted many other people's emails. You will probably say then that Google's license prohibits that use -even when attributing- and then I come back to my (much earlier) statement that licenses are there to restrict free use of data, not to allow. To the extent that databases are covered by rights or contracts that is false. Anyway, if default IP right allows for citing when attributing, why do our users need to agree to a ODBL license ? Allow or require? Is there anything more that we like them to comply with ? To pass on the freedom they receive. But if you want data to be PD, make it PD and then someone else can incorporate it into the database under the CTs. I really don't see what the problem is. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Ed Avis schrieb: The CC-BY-SA licence does seem to be a lot more straightforward than the ODbL/DbCL combination. As I understand it, that's because any current CC-BY-SA license does not really cover databases as described by database laws in some jurisdictions, and neither collections of factual information as described in other jurisdictions, while the ODbL/DbCL combination does. (Although the uncertainty could be mitigated by agreed community norms and agreed interpretations, there isn't any body able to define them: the OSMF cannot grant exemptions from the strict letter of the licence or issue clarifications about what it means, because the OSMF is not the copyright holder.) Well, IIRC that's exactly one of the points of the CTs, granting the OSMF the right to allow exemptions in some cases. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
