Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Retain PD mapper's contributions?
On 27 November 2011 14:10, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Mike N. wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account) Is this a way that we might be able to retain a declared-PD-but-CT-declining mapper's contributions? Yes. The Contributor Terms say If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. In other words, you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current licence terms. PD is compatible with the current licence terms. PD is compatible with everything! So it requires a user to take on the contributions of the PD/decliner. This might be done elegantly (i.e. by reassigning their contributions within the database - pretty much 'UPDATE changesets SET user=the_new_mapper WHERE user=the_PD_decliner'), if LWG consents. Or alternatively, as Frederik alludes, it might be done rather more messily, by deleting and reimporting the PD/decliner's contributions and any subsequent (CT-agreeing) alterations. Obviously I hope we can use the elegant solution. :) Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely to change its legal status. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Retain PD mapper's contributions?
andrzej zaborowski wrote: Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely to change its legal status. Surely you understand that the issue is not the legal status of the data in isolation, it's whether or not the mapper associated with that data has assented to the CTs. The CTs say You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. For one reason or another, TimSC, for example, does not want to give that assurance to OSMF; I am, however, happy to do so for his data. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Retain-PD-mapper-s-contributions-tp7034374p7036304.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Retain PD mapper's contributions?
On 27 November 2011 15:14, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: andrzej zaborowski wrote: Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely to change its legal status. Surely you understand that the issue is not the legal status of the data in isolation, it's whether or not the mapper associated with that data has assented to the CTs. The CTs say You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. For one reason or another, TimSC, for example, does not want to give that assurance to OSMF; I am, however, happy to do so for his data. Right, I'm just saying that amending the edits history so that it's (in a way) false also seems like the wrong tool to achieve this. Additionally to switch to ODbL the OSMF will need an assurance that data is compatible with ODbL instead of only with the current license terms which CT requires. (different topic) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Right, so I guess what Kai Kruger wrote you only have to share the last in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right? is not so? As far as I can see there is no requirement to show your workings as long as you make the Derived Database available under ODbL. Suppose you transform the OSM database, adding in some non-OSM-content along the way and produce a table containing three columns: x, y and colour, where x and y are pixel coordinates for an image and the colour column specifies the colour value for the pixel. The result is that you can publish a table and an image that contain identical information. The table has to be licensed as ODbL and the image, being a Produced Work, can be published under any license whatsoever. So far so good. Assuming the Produced Work was not published under a friendly license it can't be used so we can forget about that. The Derived Database can, however, be transformed into the same (or a similar) image which can be reincorporated. How? By making your own Produced Work you can license it under an OSM friendly license[1]. You would, of course, need to hand trace from it to recover the non-OSM-content but that's easy to do and there's a large army of OSMers who are very skilled at this task, so that's not a problem. For any Derived Database it will always be possible to recover the content by making a liberally licensed Produced Work from it and tracing. 80n [1] You have to do this step because any unfriendly publisher would block the use of the ODbL content directly by simply refusing to agree to the Contributor Terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
Hi, On 11/27/2011 11:00 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I believe I was thinking of this thread: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.legal/6306 I see that you and Frederik disagreed here. [...] The access to source data clause in ODbL expressly applies to both Derivative Databases and Produced Works. 4.6: If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of (etc.) Right, so I guess what Kai Kruger wrote you only have to share the last in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right? is not so? 1. That's my quote, not Kai's. 2. I still believe it to be correct. 3. I don't think it is a contradiction to what Richard said above. Maybe is introductory the 'access to source data' clause applies to both... is a bit misleading but careful reading of the quote immediately following that should make it clear: If you public use a Produced Work, you have to offer the Derivative Database used to create it. If you publicly use a Derivative Database, you have to offer the Derivative Database itself. You are not required to release the database from which the derivate was made; although you *could* do that along with a production rule to satisfy the requirement. The idea behind this is that if you publish anything based on ODbL licensed data, the recipient of that anything should have available to him the database required to re-produce that. Whatever you publish could have other ingredients than just data; perhaps, a few hundred hours' worth of a cartographer's editing in Illustrator. *That* you don't have to release; it is yours to keep. But someone else must have the option to get the source database from you (er be told by you how to obtain it) and then invest his own few hundred cartographer hours. So yes, you could take an OSM database for London, and pipe it through a series of complex database processing steps until for example all that remains is, for each point in a 10x10 meter grid, the number of meters you have to walk until you reach a street with a in its name. Then you make a nice picture from that - London coloured according to distance to nearest street with a - and release it. Your obligation to share and release now only affects your grid database and not any of the intermediate steps, and not the original OSM data either. (For the purpose of this argument let's assume that the base map drawn in your final picture was a public domain map that doesn't affect the license situation.) I think that anything said until here will not be disputed by Richard; the bit that *can* be disputed is whether or not it is permissible to label your resulting image a database and then not release the database behind it. That, however, would have the consequence that you have to share the image itself, which would not be the case under the Produced Works provision. 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
