Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

2012-07-26 Thread Mike Dupont 
Hi there,
I also have these concerns, and am really interested in the resolution.
mike

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Pavel Pisa  wrote:

> Dear OSMF responsible,
>
> even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia
> problems  shows that there can be problems or complications
> with ODBL only licensed data.
>
> I.e imagine quite realistic scenario. I like to map
> marked hiking paths in our area. The guideposts texts
> are critical information. They are usually acquired
> as photos and they are hold in Wikipedia commons.
> We have guideposts in map as well, it would worth
> to run script to extract already know guideposts locations,
> match them with commons and run update and preparation of
> commons pages. But this in ODBl language derivative
> of database. But pages and text (i.e. locations)
> in commons are CC-BY-SA. Same if amenity water
> is imported etc. We would be in the fact forbidden
> to use our own data.
>
> More people would feel much more safe if they know that
> they can access their future contributions under CC-BY-SA
> as well. Now all data are CC-BY-SA compatible.
>
> Other uncertainty source is OSMF silence to questions
> and worry about license and mainly contributions
> terms abuse.
>
> When I have expressed my concerns to OSMF agent
> convicing me to agree to new CT (2011-02-15),
> he agreed that my remarks are valid and would be
> discussed at OSMF. Then no reply come.
> Same for my concerns in email to legal-talk list
> at 2012-04-02 when I stepped in discussion with
> Pavel Machek.
>
> Please, take extralicenses as the first class citizen.
>
> http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/
>
> Keep that information in primary OSM database and allow
> JOSM to indicate CC-BY-SA compatible changes in history
> same as CT is shown now. I believe that many people would
> be happy with that and they would provide contributions
> through OSM instead of abandon OSM and contributing
> to FOSM.
>
> By the way, I am leaving for hiking without Internet
> access for more than two weeks now. I expect to have
> even some tracks and data to contribute into some
> open community map.
> But according to actual CT wording I am almost losing
> the right to be heard in terms or license changes vote
> because limit to respond is three weeks. And I and even
> more some other people are going for month or even more
> to the distant areas.
>
> Same problem with not limiting frequency
> and period for discussion about CT and license
> changes.
>
> By the way, how is is possible that on page
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new
>
> is not directly seen which agreement would be
> demanded from me. I looked at registration
> to find actual CT wording. ODBl pointer is
> hidden in "privacy policy" and no word about CT
> at the first glimpse. But there should be
> direct pointer from "new" page to the CT which
> are demanded from users for about one year
> already. So one registers and only then he
> is confronted with fact that he has to agree
> to someting he/she would not know in advance.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>Pavel Pisa
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

2012-07-26 Thread Pavel Pisa 
Dear OSMF responsible,

even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia
problems  shows that there can be problems or complications
with ODBL only licensed data.

I.e imagine quite realistic scenario. I like to map
marked hiking paths in our area. The guideposts texts
are critical information. They are usually acquired
as photos and they are hold in Wikipedia commons.
We have guideposts in map as well, it would worth
to run script to extract already know guideposts locations,
match them with commons and run update and preparation of
commons pages. But this in ODBl language derivative
of database. But pages and text (i.e. locations)
in commons are CC-BY-SA. Same if amenity water
is imported etc. We would be in the fact forbidden
to use our own data.

More people would feel much more safe if they know that
they can access their future contributions under CC-BY-SA
as well. Now all data are CC-BY-SA compatible.

Other uncertainty source is OSMF silence to questions
and worry about license and mainly contributions
terms abuse.

When I have expressed my concerns to OSMF agent
convicing me to agree to new CT (2011-02-15),
he agreed that my remarks are valid and would be
discussed at OSMF. Then no reply come.
Same for my concerns in email to legal-talk list
at 2012-04-02 when I stepped in discussion with
Pavel Machek.

Please, take extralicenses as the first class citizen.

http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/

Keep that information in primary OSM database and allow
JOSM to indicate CC-BY-SA compatible changes in history
same as CT is shown now. I believe that many people would
be happy with that and they would provide contributions
through OSM instead of abandon OSM and contributing
to FOSM.

By the way, I am leaving for hiking without Internet
access for more than two weeks now. I expect to have
even some tracks and data to contribute into some
open community map.
But according to actual CT wording I am almost losing
the right to be heard in terms or license changes vote
because limit to respond is three weeks. And I and even
more some other people are going for month or even more
to the distant areas.

Same problem with not limiting frequency
and period for discussion about CT and license
changes.

By the way, how is is possible that on page

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new

is not directly seen which agreement would be
demanded from me. I looked at registration
to find actual CT wording. ODBl pointer is
hidden in "privacy policy" and no word about CT
at the first glimpse. But there should be
direct pointer from "new" page to the CT which
are demanded from users for about one year
already. So one registers and only then he
is confronted with fact that he has to agree
to someting he/she would not know in advance.

Best wishes,

   Pavel Pisa

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Tagging] tagging awards and ratings

2012-07-26 Thread Alan Mintz 

At 2012-07-26 14:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 26.07.2012 19:10, Johan Jönsson wrote:

Sometimes there is a discussion on how to tag differnt kind of awards and
ratings.


It is possible that the organisation publishing the ratings has some sort 
of copyright or database right to them. For example I don't think it will 
be legal to copy TripAdvisor ratings into OSM.


This may be an FAQ, but if a shop posts their awards in public view, don't 
we have fair use to note it in our data, much like a photographer has a 
right to photograph, or a news reporter has a right to report, something in 
public view?


What about if the shop advertises on their own or another website, or in a 
magazine, with that award displayed?


Lastly, what about health-department grades, created and (usually) 
published by public agencies - something I'd like to import and update 
locally at least? I "know" that if it's data created by a US Federal 
agency, it's public domain, but what about US state and local governments 
(does the same law -- use of public funds = public domain -- apply)?


--
Alan Mintz 


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