Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki Mapia Mass Upload
> many parks, commercial areas, and graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM Pre-fork or post-fork? That's one key question. On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 15.09.2013 13:25, Simon Poole wrote: > > a) some proof of this actually happening > > b) a pointer to who is doing it (if confirmed) > > I don't understand enough of Wikimapia to actually determine which > account has uploaded what when, but a cursory glance at the link (OSM > can be activated as a base map in tha layer switcher) seems to indicate > that buildings look similar to OSM but not the same (my guess - both > imported from same source?) while many parks, commercial areas, and > graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: >> I've always understood that the intent of the >> ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. > > Whose intent are we talking about, here? Put another way, feel free to use the content of the people who chose to relicense under the ODbL, as if CC-BY-SA were the ODbL. But for the content of those of us who have *not* chosen to relicense under the ODbL, you need to respect that our intent was to release our work under CC-BY-SA, and not the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: > On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> Jonathan Harley wrote: >>> >>> Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements >>> are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use >>> OSM. >> >> That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't >> simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you >> disagree with it. > > Like I said, my interpretation of the license - like everyone's - is guided > by what we think the intent of it is. You can't just make up the intent without any regard to what the license says about what its intent is. "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: > On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: >>> I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the >>> license. >>> Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a >>> variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and >>> OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from >>> creating >>> works in which not all elements are free. >> >> I'm not sure where you're getting that "interpretation" from. > > I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better > expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the > ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? The intent of some may have been to use CC-BY-SA as though it were not a copyleft license (*), but I seriously doubt that was the intention of most of us. (*) To wit, Cloudmade seems to use it that way. >> The >> license doesn't even mention "data", and attribution is not enough. > > OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests > specifically mentions "Map data". Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. > Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 > legal professional. Depends who the amateurs are. The interpretation of a single legal professional is fairly worthless, unless you've paid that legal professional for advice. > Let's just wait until it goes to court, I say. It won't go to court. > I'll be > interested to see who is so incensed about OSM's data being combined with > non-SA third-party data, and how they claim they are suffering losses by the > third-party data not being made available to them under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Anthony wrote: > Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the > instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does. If you wrote a website which intentionally caused the computer of the person visiting it to overheat, catch on fire, and burn down a building, the person guilty of arson wouldn't be the person who visited the website, it'd be the person who wrote the website. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 02/02/11 18:49, Jonathan Harley wrote: >>> >>> For print, yes, that's about the size of it. >> >> I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to >> paper or to a screen, changes the bits used > > The difference is who makes the work. > > If you have an image comprising two separatable layers - say, an OpenLayers > map with a CC-BY-SA source and a proprietary source - then both these images > are published by the people operating the servers (may be the same server, > may be different servers). > > You have two images, with different licensing, and it is *you* who combines > them, using software that runs on *your* computer, into one rendering. > > If *that* rendering was now published, it would certainly have to be > CC-BY-SA (say if you make a screenshot or a print). However, the people you > get the images from do not publish that rendering; they publish two distinct > images, licensed differently, which is totally ok. There's no way that would ever hold up in court. For one thing, I don't think you're right that the person doing the combining is the person who visits the website, or the person who owns the computer which does the combining. Rather, I'd say the person doing the combining is the person who instructs the computer to combine the images, in other words, "the people you get the images from". Furthermore, even if the direct infringer *was* the person who visited the website, the person who wrote the website to facilitate the infringement would still be guilty of contributory infringement. The only way to get around infringement in the case of layers is to successfully claim 1) that no derivative work is produced (probably under the argument that the combined work is not "fixed"; or 2) that the license permits the particular combination. Of course, the real issue here is that we're talking about infringement for which the actual damages are miniscule, and for which statutory damages probably aren't available (as the work has not been registered). > That's the difference between print (where the image is already combined for > you, and published in combined form) and a layered web application (where it > is you, through certain instructions you give to software running on your > machine, who creates the derived work by superimposing the images). Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: > On 02/02/11 18:00, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley >> wrote: >>> >>> On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >>>> >>>> Jonathan Harley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the >>>>> sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, >>>>> in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work >>>>> based on a database, ever. >>>> >>>> For print, yes, that's about the size of it. >>> >>> I don't see what print's got to do with it. >> >> Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to >> subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he >> says "If the layers are separable >> then you can have different licenses on each". > > I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. > Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a > variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and > OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating > works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that "interpretation" from. The license doesn't even mention "data", and attribution is not enough. The license is CC-BY-SA, not CC-BY. Perhaps this is where you got confused? I see you mentioned CC-BY earlier. I thought it was a typo, though. > I intended my comments to be limited to the wording of the current license > as linked to by openstreetmap.org, and my interpretation is guided by the > idea that the current license must be intended to make sense. It does make sense. And it's pretty simple, really. "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: > On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> Jonathan Harley wrote: >>> >>> Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the >>> sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, >>> in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work >>> based on a database, ever. >> >> For print, yes, that's about the size of it. > > I don't see what print's got to do with it. Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he says "If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each". However... > Any rendering, whether to paper > or to a screen, changes the bits used; One argument which could be used is that a rendering to a screen is not "fixed", therefore it is not a derivative work. For a US case where this was successfully argued, see Galoob v. Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.). However, I believe there was a more recent ruling regarding website "framing" which largely limited the application of Galoob v. Nintendo to websites. > if you take that as the meaning of > modified, then there could be no "unmodified" renderings of any database, I agree. > which means in turn that there could be no collective works, so the > conditions about being separate and independent would be irrelevant. Did you read my earlier explanation? The rendered map is released under CC-BY-SA, and then *that* can be part of a collective work. Alternatively, the database, as it exists on disk, is a collective work with the other files on disk being other works which are part of the collection. There's no bar against collective works. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote: >> And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless >> the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the >> map. >> http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm > > This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from > the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about > conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe > this could work as a collection. I think so. The main point that I would argue is that the modification of cutting out a corner is independent from the image. I suppose you could argue the same if you cut out holes from an OSM map, without knowing what you were going to put there, and then laid in copyrightable non-CC-BY-SA elements into the holes. Maybe technically legal, but definitely a subversion of the spirit of the license. > >> How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? >> http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ > > Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA. > > We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I > remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there > were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes > superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as > to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however. > > I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and > co-dependency - the question of "does the overlaid stuff work without the > map". So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain > point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning > without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just > sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could > be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share > and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. > >> Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or >> photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict >> interpretation was used. > > I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed > been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because > it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading > (and one I clearly don't share). > > 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] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: > On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: >> What is meant by "content is unmodified"? Obviously the printed base >> map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your >> interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either >> prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other >> interpretation for "content is unmodified" that you can think of? >> > > I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you > start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only > reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase "unmodified form" > in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). It couldn't possibly refer to the geodata, because the license is usable for more than just geodata. My take is that it refers to the separate and independent work. So that means you can make any modifications you want, so long as those modifications are CC-BY-SA. These modifications are made under the clause allowing you to make derivative works, not under the clause allowing you to use the work as part of a collection. It's only when you start adding non-CC-BY-SA works to the collection that you no longer can make modifications. > Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of > having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there > could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is > that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? Yes. > It seems > clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose > conditions, not to prohibit everything. I agree, and that's why I think my interpretation of what "separate and independent" means is correct. I think you have to look at the requirements of "separate", "independent", and "unmodified" together as a whole, not as independent requirements. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is more clear on this, though you could still argue that it has the same loophole. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Anthony wrote: >> >> Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or >> neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM >> is simply a database of facts, > > Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts. > >> and that therefore what's best for a >> database of facts is best for OSM. > > I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is > that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae of facts". Alright, so, here's what they've said: "We occasionally encounter a misimpression that CC licenses can’t be used for data and databases, or that we don’t want CC licenses to be used for data and databases. This is largely our fault" "Data and databases are often copyrightable. When licensed under any of our licenses, the license terms apply to copyrightable data and databases, requiring adaptations that are distributed be released under the same or compatible license terms, for example, when a ShareAlike license is used." "CC licenses can and should be used for data and databases, right now (as they have been for 8 years) — with the important caveat that CC 3.0 license conditions do not extend to “protect” a database that is otherwise uncopyrightable." ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Anthony wrote: > Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it > does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression > half of the idea/expression divide. Ugh, sorry for the imprecise language (this is why I'm thrilled CC's lawyers are finally looking at this). By "does not cover", I mean that it provides license to use any facts and ideas contained in the work without restriction. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is >> that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae of facts". > > Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position > that scientific data should be licensed CC0? Mike's comments seemed > to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see > how cartographic facts are not scientific data. Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression half of the idea/expression divide. This would level the playing field between different jurisdictions, while remaining a "pure grant of permission" and without resorting to "imposing extra restrictions on people beyond what the law specifies". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is > that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae of facts". Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position that scientific data should be licensed CC0? Mike's comments seemed to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see how cartographic facts are not scientific data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and > 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data > sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is > not > directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project. Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I'm thrilled to see that CC seems to be distancing itself from this position. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Joao Neto wrote: > Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing! > To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too > restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in > the open source / community space all seem to have a very healthy balance > between individual contribution and private contribution/investment. I think > the share-alike requirement is killing the potential for growing a private > ecosystem. In my opinion there aren't that many sustainable business models > in this space where companies can freely share their data. If you do that, > then eventually someone will copy your data and business model. With your > "differentiation factor" gone, you'll be out of business pretty soon. I think the same could be said of Wikipedia, and in fact there are very few companies successfully making a business model out of taking Wikipedia content. Of course, that doesn't seem to be hurting Wikipedia, which is a project to create a free encyclopedia, not a project to help people make money off their non-free encyclopedias. Likewise, OSM is, or at least was, a project to make a free editable map of the world, not a project to help people make money off their non-free maps of the world. Unlike some in the OSM community I don't think there's anything wrong with you wanting to make a profit off your maps and/or map data. But I also don't think helping you do so is any part of the goal of the OSM project. Fortunately for you OSM is changing to a license which is much more favorable for exploitation by businesses. Ask this question again in a few months when and if the project has adopted the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Joao Neto wrote: > If the OSM POI data is displayed together (i.e. in the same page or same > screen or same map, etc.) with data and POIs from other sources, does the > "share-alike" apply? The question is whether the OSM POI data and the proprietary POI data constitute "separate and independent works in themselves". I'd say being on the same page or same screen, in itself, is fine, but if you mix the sources together into a single map (regardless of the technical process used to create that map), then you must make the map, including the underlying data, CC-BY-SA. Until that point, I think you're fine, so long as you keep the data in separate tables, and probably even if you keep it in the same table with a column that distinguishes the two. Some people disagree with this, and feel that if the works are combined by the end user, for instance in javascript, that everything is okay. Personally I think the *intent* of CC-BY-SA is not to include such a loophole, as there is effectively no difference between a mashup made on the server and a mashup made on the client. Another thing to consider is that making the mashup on the client side requires sending the data to the client in a form that is easily copied. And if your map is publicly available, that means it's highly likely that someone is going to come along and extract your supposedly proprietary data and use a loophole of their own - the fact that factual data is largely unprotected from copying in most parts of the world. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Joao Neto wrote: > Hi, > > I'm planning to develop an Android application that displays OpenStreetMap > POIs near you and complements the OSM data with data coming from other > sources (address, phone numbers, user notes, etc.). > What are the license implications in doing that? Would I have to expose the > combined data under the ODbL? OSM is not currently licensed under the ODbL. It is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "current license terms"
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: > At 01:10 AM 17/01/2011, Anthony wrote: >>At what point, if any, does the database become one where OSMF can't >>switch back to CC-BY-SA without removing data? > > If 2/3 of active contributors vote for CC-BY-SA then OSMF can switch to it. By the way, according to the CT, there is no requirement for a 2/3 vote to switch to CC-BY-SA 2.0. Right? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "current license terms"
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: > > At 01:10 AM 17/01/2011, Anthony wrote: >>https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU > > Latest and greatest: > > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1jY58fD3JyNUjzmecrpNejoOt4OnfHeEM-6o8rD5hCLY More like latest and worst. Among other things, it now says "OSMF agrees to that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database". :rolls eyes: >>And after the CC-BY-SA content is removed it means ODbL and >>DbCL? > > It means ODbL and DbCL once we have formally changed from CC-BY-SA. Which means what? Obviously OSMF has to remove the CC-BY-SA content *before* it can stop requiring people to submit data which is compatible with CC-BY-SA. What step is "formally changing from CC-BY-SA"? >>At what point, if any, does the database become one where OSMF can't >>switch back to CC-BY-SA without removing data? > > If 2/3 of active contributors vote for CC-BY-SA then OSMF can switch to it. > If there was some data in there that somehow could be distributed under ODbL > but not under CC-BY-SA, then it would either have to be removed or the IP > owners contacted for permission. At what point, if any, are people allowed to contribute data which is not compatible with CC-BY-SA? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] "current license terms"
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU "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." What are the "current license terms"? Right now it means, what, CC-BY-SA? And after the CC-BY-SA content is removed it means ODbL and DbCL? At what point, if any, does the database become one where OSMF can't switch back to CC-BY-SA without removing data? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: > A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years > time Database rights only last 15 years, though, and facts can't be copyrighted. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > John Smith wrote: >> On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr wrote: >>> This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of >>> relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. >> >> This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is >> owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony >> that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a >> movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at >> the end of it > > Yes, I remember - he used this example to show that majority relicensing > "is not a natural consequence of a collective effort". But that was > never quite my point. > > Relicensing through majority /does/ make sense for a collective effort > if the intention is to be actually able to perform a license change. Sure. But it's not my intention that OSM be actually able to perform a license change. I haven't been sold that the ability to change licenses, as opposed to the ability to upgrade to a new version of the same license, is more important than the principle of, as you put it, individual data ownership. As I've agreed in the past, it is indeed a fundamental philosophical disagreement. I am a strong believer that individual ownership, as opposed to collective ownership, produces the best and most fair results. I don't believe that large groups of people, acting collectively via voting, make good decisions about licenses. And, in fact, I think you will find that even among successful projects which have delegated license decisions away from the individual contributors, that the vast majority of them have delegated those decisions to individuals or to very small groups/boards/committees, not to the membership at large or to the contributors at large. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 January 2011 02:26, Anthony wrote: >> And besides, there is another alternative to individual ownership and >> collective ownership, and that is no ownership. If we don't want >> individual ownership, that's fine with me, but that means the data >> should be public domain. > > Unfortunately that conflicts with other practical issues, such as most > non-US government data that requires at least attribution of some > sort, which then leads to duplication of efforts, rather than the > ability to collaberate and everyone will be better off. Well, yeah, but requiring individual attribution means acknowledging individual ownership. In which case there's no need for public domain, and we can go with CC-BY-SA, or CC-BY, with no relicensing clause. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote: > When people collaborate on a film, for instance, they > are making a collective effort, but they don't then allow a majority > (or supermajority) to relicense the film under any license they deem > appropriate. And along those lines, if we don't believe in individual ownership, why require a supermajority of 2/3 in order to change the license? Why should 1/3+1 of contributors be able to dictate terms to 2/3-1? If it's just a collective decision, to do whatever is best for the collective, then the vote should be simple majority, not 2/3 majority. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing >> terms. > > It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental > philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the > Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data > ownership. Correct. Sort of. I insist on not using the idea of collective ownership. More on what I mean by that in my final paragraph. > The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building > a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to > each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between > "my data", "your data" and "their data". > As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective, > not individual, decisions. That most certainly is not a natural consequence of a collective effort, though. When people collaborate on a film, for instance, they are making a collective effort, but they don't then allow a majority (or supermajority) to relicense the film under any license they deem appropriate. And besides, there is another alternative to individual ownership and collective ownership, and that is no ownership. If we don't want individual ownership, that's fine with me, but that means the data should be public domain. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > The *main* reason for the active-contributor definition is that we need to > exclude those who are dead, unreachable, or have lost interest, from the > decision-making process. Those people aren't going to respond within three weeks to an email, are they? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Such an opt-out clause >> would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot >> where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it >> at any time. > > On the rest, we're going to just have to agree to disagree. But I > think this depiction of an opt-out clause is quite unfair. An opt-out > clause doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at any time. In > fact, it doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at all. Ah, now I see I may have been unclear. Above I said "Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing terms." What I meant was "Let people decline relicensing of their data if they don't agree to future licensing terms." They wouldn't be allowed to remove the data from the database they contributed to, licensed under the license they contributed it under. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Such an opt-out clause > would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot > where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it > at any time. On the rest, we're going to just have to agree to disagree. But I think this depiction of an opt-out clause is quite unfair. An opt-out clause doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at any time. In fact, it doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at all. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >>> But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not >>> guaranteed a right to contribute. >> [] >>> But what could we do? >> >> Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing >> terms. Even an opt-out arrangement would be better than the current >> one, where 2 people with 1 edit each get to override 1 person with >> 10,000 edits. > > +1 > > On the surface that would seem to give a better indication of if a > license change should be adopted or not, but I agree with Frederik's > point that pointless or abusive edits shouldn't make someone be > eligible as an active contributor either when it comes to influencing > major changes... What if those 10,000 edits were duplicating ways > simply to up their stats so as to have more influence over things... Then you let them opt out and don't worry about it. If their ways aren't useful, then they don't have any more influence over things. I never suggest weighting votes by number of edits. That wouldn't work for much the reason you've explained above. You can't come up with an algorithm for measuring quality of edits, but if you let people opt-out of changes, then the OSMF board can decide on the quality and weight of those edits, and whether or not they outweigh the need to switch to the new license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > On 2010-12-23 04:14, Anthony wrote: >> >> I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear >> license? This would be one point for them to clarify. > > Good point. I think the discussion here on the mail list is not leading to a > clear license because we all are just interpreting and guessing. I've mostly posted questions, which so far have not been answered. I made a couple comments about how I understood the license (when I first read it), but I intended that as an explanation of areas that needed clarification if they differed with the intent. Actually I thought Frederik had some inside information which led him to the conclusions he made. > Wouldn't it be better to tell Bing your special case/your questions? They > have a legal department which should know what they want and with the > questions they get feedback that their license isn't that clear as they > probably thought it is. I guess I could pose the questions to Bing, but really I don't think it's efficient for me to talk to Bing directly. If there is someone on the OSM side who would like to gather up questions/comments to send to Bing, I'd be happy to relay mine. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > On 2010-12-22 01:24, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm >> wrote: >>> >>> This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops >>> publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under >>> CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept >>> newly traced data after the license change. >> >> I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must >> contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you >> can't also contribute traced data to a fork. > > Of course you can, but at your own risk - although I'm with you that it's > very small. But as long as there is no court rule nobody knows for sure :-). I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear license? This would be one point for them to clarify. > Bing explicitly says it's ok for contributing to OSM. I'd say it's implicit, rather than explicit. They say you must contribute the data to OSM, which implies that they give you permission to do so. I guess the license doesn't explicitly state whether or not others are then allowed to modify or redistribute that contributed data, be they forks, or mirrors, or Bing competitors, or otherwise. But Frederik's comment (which I guess he has now withdrawn since he says he doesn't want to think about it) is the first suggestion I've heard that maybe we aren't. On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Anthony, > > Anthony wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm >> wrote: >>> >>> I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would >>> then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they >>> granted >>> to OpenStreetMap. >> >> And how do believe they achieve that? Through copyright law? Through >> contract law? Through some other mechanism? > > Frankly, I don't care, and since I do not intend to get actively involved in > any fork, I'll not waste my time thinking about what *they* will be allowed > to do. That's perfectly fine, but if you don't care to think about it, don't make statements about what "a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed" to do. > Anyway, the community in that fork can set their own bounds of what they > consider acceptable. They can even trace from Google and build on the > assumption that nobody will come after them. I am sure that Microsoft has > allowed data to be traced for OSM; I don't believe it is their intent to > allow tracing of data for other purposes but (a) I may be wrong, (b) someone > could always say that their intent doesn't matter anyway. It isn't relevant > to me, or to OSM. If you don't consider it relevant to you, that's perfectly fine with me. But how people are allowed to reuse data that they contribute to OSM certainly is relevant to OSM. OSM stands for *Open* Street Map. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
>> > I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must >> > contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you >> > can't also contribute traced data to a fork. > After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from > openstreetmap.org(dump maybe) under it's then license. (is my interpretation) So I need permission from OSM to redistribute my own contributions? This interpretation (or at least, the acceptance of it as something OSM would want to do) is truly evil. I only wonder how widespread it is among OSM contributors. I hope in good faith that it is held by very few. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would > then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted > to OpenStreetMap. And how do believe they achieve that? Through copyright law? Through contract law? Through some other mechanism? Would an ODbL fork be allowed? What permits it? The only way I can see interpreting the TOS such that contributions to OSM are allowed, is that Microsoft is taking the (correct) position that the copyright, if any, on then ways produced by using the aerial maps, is owned by the person doing the mapping. Basically, this seems like another case of IP protection via wishful thinking. If your interpretation held up in court, it really would be quite horrible for the world. Anyone could stop everyone else from using facts about the world, by simply claiming that they can. Maybe this is already true in some backward countries, but I'd imagine most of the world is much more sane than that, and I believe that the part of the world I live in surely is, at least for the time being. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops > publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under > CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept > newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> And now add to that we have explit permission to use the imagery >> >> I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery >> to create derived works > > The explicit permission is to use the imagery to update OSM: "any > updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if > not published to third parties) must be contributed back to > openstreetmaps.org". > > The explicit permission doesn't use the terminology of "create derived > works", but that makes sense since using the imagery to update OSM > doesn't "create derived works". And they probably don't even have permission to give you permission to "create derived works". If Microsoft allowed you to "create derived works", then you'd be able to completely undermine the business model of the people who created those aerials. On the other hand, if your permission extends only to using the imagery to update OSM, then you don't really cut into the business model of the aerial imagery owners at all. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?
>> And now add to that we have explit permission to use the imagery > > I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery > to create derived works The explicit permission is to use the imagery to update OSM: "any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org". The explicit permission doesn't use the terminology of "create derived works", but that makes sense since using the imagery to update OSM doesn't "create derived works". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part of > it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent concept) > it will infringe on that copyright. By the way, do you think it is likely that OSM-style "tracing" will produce a recognizable copy of some part of the aerial photograph? I guess it might produce a recognizable copy of any alignment errors, though I wouldn't say the alignment errors are "some part of" the photograph. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote: >> >> What is "the German equivalent >> of a 'derived work'"? And, if you're saying it's different, then how >> can you say it's equivalent? > > Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions "adaptation" rather than > "derived work". Your referring to "derived work" is therefore the use of an > equivalent concept in your own legal system. You mean the US legal system? The US code uses the term "derivative work" (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103), as does much of the case law. >> It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are >> protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the >> United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same >> as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial >> photograph is a derivative work. > > If there isn't a copyright in the original, work that copies from it cannot > infringe that copyright because it doesn't exist. Sure, but the reverse is not true. There can be copyright in the original, yet a work that copies (non-copyright parts) from it do not infringe that copyright. That is probably the situation with OSM-style "tracing" of aerial photographs. > If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part of > it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent concept) > it will infringe on that copyright. I'm not sure if we disagree on substance, or if it's just a terminology thing. How would you reconcile that statement with Bauman v Fussell? There was copyright in the original. A recognisable copy of some part of the original was made. Would you call it a case of fair dealing? > Now if you're talking about tracing ways from photos I would agree, > philosophically, that it is a leap to regard those as derivatives. Yes, that is what I was talking about. Isn't that what this thread is about? > But if it's a leap the courts have made or that companies with more lawyers > than > OSM've got have made then that's what we have to deal with. Is it a leap the courts have made? If it's just something being claimed by "companies with more lawyers than OSM've got", then how should we deal with it? >> If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work >> (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of >> the image, which is probably not Microsoft. > > You need a licence from someone with sufficient rights to grant you that > licence. Which in this case is Microsoft. What makes you think Microsoft has sufficient rights to grant that license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > > "Anthony" wrote > >> None of that even shows that German courts use the term "derivative >> work", let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the >> definition of that term. > > It's extremly unlikely that a German court would use English :-). Well yeah, exactly. When I say that "probably...tracing a map doesn't create a derived work", I certainly don't preclude the fact that some German law might impose some copyright-like, but not actually copyright, restrictions on the results of such tracing. Though I have yet to see any evidence that it does. > But in the specific case they did considered the derived work, the German > equivalent of a "derived work". What case are you talking about? It wasn't one where someone was tracing an aerial photograph, was it? What is "the German equivalent of a 'derived work'"? And, if you're saying it's different, then how can you say it's equivalent? It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial photograph is a derivative work. >>> PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing >>> right >>> now is going on in -Germany- > >> And that matters why, exactly? > > Because: > >> If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see >> that it said that the Microsoft license "makes no grants of rights to >> publish derived works". > > Does MS even have the rights to grant such a license in Germany? Do they have the rights to grant such a license in the US? I doubt it. If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of the image, which is probably not Microsoft. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it.
Then show why I'm wrong, don't say that I may be right in some
jurisdictions and you aren't sure if I'm right in others.
> For example in Germany simple "Lichtbilder" (which would include areial
> photographs) have the same protection as photographic works of art
> ("Lichtbildwerke") with the exception of the proctection term. And there is
> at least one German higher court judgement in which tracing a non-artistic
> photograph was considered copyright infringement
None of that even shows that German courts use the term "derivative
work", let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the
definition of that term. And the license being provided by Microsoft
isn't even governed under the laws of Germany anyway.
If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see
that it said that the Microsoft license "makes no grants of rights to
publish derived works". It didn't say anything about Lichtbilder laws
in Germany.
> PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right
> now is going on in -Germany-
And that matters why, exactly? Why would Microsoft issue a license,
governed under the laws of the US, giving people permission to do
something which is not restricted under US law, and is not something
which Microsoft owns the rights to anyway?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > It may be true that tracing aerial images (what you probably wanted to > state) does not create a derived work in -some- jurisdictions, but anything > else I wouldn't be so sure of. If you have nothing to add, why respond? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived > works > under any particular license, over and above what was already there. That's probably a combination of the fact that Microsoft doesn't own that right in the first place and the fact that tracing a map doesn't create a derived work. > If we couldn't do it before, we can't do it now, but that also implies that > if we > can do it now we were also allowed to do it before, although we may not have > had the right to use their API and/or an application to do that. Not quite true. Before it may have been a violation of the TOS. Now it quite clearly isn't. Nothing to do with copyright law, but as was said, better than what OSM has with Yahoo, which is basically the same thing without any of it being in writing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony wrote: > I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says "I > haven't already voted under another account", and click "Yes" or "No". > Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing > the vote could manually check for and rule on invalid votes due to > ballot stuffing. Something like > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote I should add that I think it's a terrible idea in the first place. Especially with the threshold for eligibility being so low (essentially one edit every 4 months). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony wrote: >> >> I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either. > > What would you suggest? I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says "I haven't already voted under another account", and click "Yes" or "No". Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing the vote could manually check for and rule on invalid votes due to ballot stuffing. Something like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
>> Also, the idea that the "vote" could be conducted via email is rather >> humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the "hanging chads" in >> that scenario. > > I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong > in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any other > electronic means. Maybe it worked for usenet, but that was back when having an email address was a sign of intelligence. Besides the obvious problem of parsing the various responses to determine intent, there's also the issue that email is completely insecure and the question of how to handle contributors who have multiple accounts under different email addresses. > There are of course problems, but then so are there with paper ballots as we > all know. I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Frederik Ramm writes: >> On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: >> > I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll > would reach >> > 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. >> >> The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%: >> >> "An 'active contributor' is defined as [someone who] has maintained a >> valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 >> weeks." > > Right, I apologize. I was remembering that we have about 15000 active > contributors but actually we have just that amount of potentially active > contributors. Easy mistake to make when an agreement defines a term in a way which completely contradicts the plain language meaning of the term. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Anthony schrieb: >> It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. > > 2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling "he's > crazy!" - can you clarify what you mean? It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser wrote: >> >> If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's >> abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. >> > > There's no such thing as "legalese" as I've said before. The CT's > don't say "67%" they say "2/3", which is completely clear. The phrase > "at least a 2/3 majority vote" has a pretty clear and unambiguous > meaning. It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote: >> We got new licences to choose from that countered >> “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget > > We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. They can. But the lead developer doesn't want to. The fact that he isn't forced to move against his wishes is a feature, not a bug. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Ed Avis schrieb: >> >> Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. > > Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of > how "active contributors" are defined? There's not a clear definition of how 67% is defined, though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Anthony schrieb: >> >> 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. > > Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind) > make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different > terms you like, right? Not necessarily. If the work is ineligible for protection under the law (for instance, in the US if it is not copyrightable), then you can't "put it under any different terms you like". > That said, I personally would have no problem if we'd have our data be PD in > all jurisdictions, and I have no problem with having the same > share-alike-type terms in all (major) jurisdictions. What I have a problem > with is if we provide a significantly different playing field dependent on > where in the world you are. A geographical database with geographical > unfairness somehow feels wrong to me. ;-) Then you should be in favor of CC-BY-SA 3.0 with an explicit waiver of the database right and an explicit waiver of sweat-of-the-brow copyright protection. ODbL, with its three areas of "protection" (copyright, database right, and contract law), offers three different places for geographical differences. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is > "free and open". I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the > contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority > (perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too* > often > these days. I've started a discussion of this at http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Open_Database_License Specifically, I question whether or not ODbL satisfies the second criterion: [quote]The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".[/quote] ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive > something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that > you received it. "Share alike" was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a derivative work, as opposed to that which creates a collective work. Creative commons has created its own, international, definition, but it roughly mirrors the US definitions (see http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html). The concept of "share alike" embraces and extends the earlier concept of "copyleft". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/) "Share alike" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >> >> Rob Myers schrieb: >>> >>> Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to >>> the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide >>> sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. >> >> WHAT about "IANAL" in my message don't you understand? > > I do apologize. The formatting in the email I used made it appear that was a > quote from Anthony. I also apologize to Anthony. I'm just more confused now. The claim being made by you and Robert seems to be: 1) OSM is PD in some jurisdictions. 2) ODbL somehow makes it not PD in those jurisdictions. The argument for this seems to be: 1) I've read this from people I trust. 2) It's on the list. My counter is: 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. Only Congress can do that. 2) When you slap a license on something that is public domain, it's still public domain. "If a work is in the public domain you cannot claim a copyright in it." (http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html) "Once in the public domain, it is always in the public domain." (http://www.public-domain-image.com/public_domain/public_domain.html) "...there is nothing anyone can do to move a work out of the public domain..." (http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/348) If I'm misrepresenting your claim, please let me know. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a > period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and > do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors > (electorate). While a theoretical, I simply do not see it happening. But that's the current plan (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan). PHASE 3 - Existing Contributor Mandatory Re-licensing (Phase 2 + 5 or 10 weeks). Surely if it happens once, it'll happen again. If OSM switches to CT 1.2 in 2011, then switches to CT 2.0 in 2012, then switches to CT 3.0 in 2013, people who agreed to CT 1.2 but not to CT 2.0 won't get a chance to vote in 2013. > OSMF would end up with a rapidly ageing dead copy of the database and > we the contributors would move onto a new-OSM. That might just be what happens. But whenever someone says that, they get accused of spreading FUD. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > Grant Slater writes: > >>If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new >>license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at >>least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on >>our terms. > > Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active > contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking > contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. > > Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never > do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. Would never do such a thing? OSMF *plan* to stop allowing contributions from those who don't click agree to the next CT. What makes you think they wouldn't stop allowing contributions from those who don't click agree to the one after that? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > Anthony: >> >> Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law >> regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm >> going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. > > Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the > applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources > demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. I think you're confusing me. I'm not the one claiming that data is PD in some jurisdictions. Robert Kaiser is. He said "We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P" It wasn't my claim, so I don't know what jurisdictions he was talking about. And to be more specific, I don't believe there is any jurisdiction in which OSM, in its entirety, is PD. I do know that unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States. But I also know that OSM is not merely an unorganized collection of facts. Certain excerpts of it are, but not the entirety. Finally, to explain my point, unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States *regardless of whether or not you try to pretend they aren't by slapping the ODbL on top of them*. A contract is not binding upon people who have not accepted it, and there is absolutely no way OSM can force everyone who gets a copy of OSM to accept a contract. Even if they forced everyone who downloads OSM from planet.openstreetmap.org to click on "I agree", they can't stop third parties from running mirrors where there is no such click-through. > Failing that, have a read of the previous conversations on this subject that > you have participated in on this list and let us know what you are > pretending not to understand this time. What subject would that be? Can you narrow my search? Or were you just misunderstanding my point? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Anthony schrieb: >> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >>> >>> Anthony schrieb: >>>> >>>> One alternative is status quo. >>> >>> Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located >>> in >>> some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, >>> there >>> are quite a few). :P >> >> Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law >> regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm >> going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. > > I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it > may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but > IANAL, so I really can't explain details. Okay, well, I'm just letting you know that you're wrong. A contract doesn't apply to people who haven't accepted it. If you can't show why something is true, you really shouldn't be basing your arguments on it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony wrote: >> >> The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that >> the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according >> to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first >> place. > > I think there's some mistaken use of terminology here, which may be > confusing some people (even if not you). As it stands 1.2 grants a > licence to use the contributed data in any way restricted by the > database right (or copyright). It does not grant the right itself. > OSMF does not become the owner of the right as a result. > > There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui > generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that > their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that > view, but other views are more problematic. As you know database right > law is still in its infancy, so its hard to be sure. > >> >> The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact >> that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But > > I'm not sure that is clear at all. I'd certainly think there's a good > arguable case that the contributors jointly own a database right in > the map data. Okay, yes, you're quite right about this. I guess I went too deep into the "let's assume temporarily that it really isn't possible to have collective database rights, even though I'm not sure whether or not this is the case". >> you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. >> >> If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database >> right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database >> right. > > That is the position under CT 1.2. Maybe technically, but it's rather useless without a license on everyone else's portion of the database, for which we are all, under the CT 1.2, dependent upon OSMF to grant, and under which the OSMF only promises (if anything at all) to grant under some "free and open" license which was agreed to by 2/3rds of active contributors. And considering that the very first license OSMF intends to use, the ODbL, isn't even one that I'd consider "free and open" (due to its restrictions on the use of factual information), that's not acceptable to me. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote: >> That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one >> of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm >> quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority. > > But then why do you contribute to an community project like OSM? Because it's fun, because it's educational, and because when I map my area of town and you map your area of town, and then we combine those maps together, we both get better maps. > Don't > misunderstand me, I respect your individualism. But I don't think that a > collaborative database is possible if every contributor puts his ego first. Well, I'd say pretty close to the exact opposite is true. But that's really a discussion for another list. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote: >> The OSMF certainly should >> not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the >> OSMF. > > I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF I never said that "more contributors should be members of the OSMF". In fact, I don't believe that "more contributors should be members of the OSMF". People should only be members of the OSMF if they care about the functions of the OSMF, which is to *support* OSM, not to control it. >> And it's not really any better for the OSM community as a whole >> >> to own the database right, especially under a "one person, one vote" >> scenario. Why should two people who contribute one node a month be >> able to override the wishes of one person who contributes 10 million >> nodes a month? > > In your example it looks bad for the one person but in general I'm not > afraid of a 2/3 majority. That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority. >> This also has the advantage of creating a >> situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to >> people in other jurisdictions. > > As long as there are no common world rules there will always be differences. True, which is why I painted this as a secondary advantage, and not the primary principle. >> In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*? > > That's the problem, nobody really knows. I would guess the owner of > www.openstreetmap.org. Wouldn't that be the OSMF? >> How do the CTs change this? > > The make clear that OSMF claims the right for the database. The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first place. The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database right. (*) Is something like 1.2 going to be the next version of the CT? Is it just a proposal, or has the decision to modify the CT been made and only the details need to be sorted out? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony wrote: > Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law > regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm > going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Or maybe Frederik can answer it: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000839.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Anthony schrieb: >> >> One alternative is status quo. > > Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in > some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there > are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
wrote:
> As I understand it, there must be someone who "owns" the database because
> otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andreas Perstinger
wrote:
> On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "owns the database". The copyright?
>> The database right? Something else?
>
> I mean the database right. For the european database directive (which is a
> protection for the investment into the database and not for the data
> ("Leistungsschutzrecht" in german)) you need someone who owns the database.
Then no one should own the database right. The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF. And it's not really any better for the OSM community as a whole
to own the database right, especially under a "one person, one vote"
scenario. Why should two people who contribute one node a month be
able to override the wishes of one person who contributes 10 million
nodes a month? So the only viable solution, IF the database right
cannot be held by the individual contributors, is to waive the
database right altogether. This also has the advantage of creating a
situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to
people in other jurisdictions.
In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*?
How do the CTs change this?
>> Who "owns" Wikipedia?
>
> I think there is a big difference between a project like Wikipedia (where
> the single texts are copyright protected) and OSM (where most/all of the
> data is not copyright protected).
Agreed. But that doesn't answer my question.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony wrote: > By the way: "The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is > not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data." http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger >> As I understand it, there must be someone who "owns" the database because >> otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? > > I'm not sure what you mean by "owns the database". By the way: "The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data." And, in fact, under the current proposed CT, the OSMF would *not* "own the database". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smith >> wrote: >> And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not >> created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding >> principle. OSMF was created to support the project, not be the >> project. > > What's the alternative? One alternative is status quo. Each person owns his/her contribution, and licenses it to OSMF under CC-BY-SA. Another alternative, which is probably preferable, is for each contributor to grant OSMF permission to sublicence their contributions under CC-BY-SA. Another alternative is the situation which was presented in the original CT, which was the one which was voted on by the OSMF members - everyone who receives the data receives the same license as OSMF. I'm sure there are others which could be come up with after setting the principles. > As I understand it, there must be someone who "owns" the database because > otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? I'm not sure what you mean by "owns the database". The copyright? The database right? Something else? Who "owns" Wikipedia? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 8 December 2010 18:57, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> I agree with Frederik's very nice comparison of OSM with volunteer >> organizations as well. >> >> I guess OSM should be viewed as a collection of geodata to which >> Frederik, John, Liz, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Richard, Richard, >> Richard, et al have contributed to, instead of as a collection of >> Frederik's geodata, John's geodata, Liz' geodata, Steve's geodata, >> etc. > > I agree 100% with both of you, however as always the details are what > trips things up. And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding principle. OSMF was created to support the project, not be the project. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony wrote: > To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) > require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have > a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new > CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit > in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. I think that "3" would have to be "10", though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, > > * license the data under a non-free or non-open license Free according to whom? Open according to whom? > * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active > contributors > * change the definition of "active contributor" As was pointed out in another thread, nothing stops OSMF from selectively locking out certain individuals so that they cannot remain active contributors. To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Personally I'm delighted that Bing is happy to work with us, and I think > their attitude to permitting tracing without claiming a share in any > (allegedly) resulting IP reflects very well on them when compared to Google > and to some imagery providers. Hopefully OSM will display the same attitude toward the forks tracing from OSM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony wrote: > However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, > unintended consequences are unenforcible. And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say that I don't claim or even believe there was any maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst >> wrote: >>> Rather, as Francis pointed out: "A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting >>> the licence? It does happen you know :-)." >>> >>> Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be >>> adequately explained by cock-up. >> >> The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the >> wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added >> in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How >> could it be an accident? >> > > I'm a member of Licensing Working Group... I haven't followed this > whole thread yet, but if there is a mistake it is a cocked up, not > malicious. Just to clarify, I don't claim or even believe there was any maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT. However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, unintended consequences are unenforcible. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Rather, as Francis pointed out: "A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting > the licence? It does happen you know :-)." > > Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be > adequately explained by cock-up. The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How could it be an accident? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > David Groom wrote: >> If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD > > They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I > think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that > anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by > the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for > share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his > views. "If you spent more than 34 seconds thinking about it you'd realise that the best possible route for [Steve Coast] would be Public Domain so he could do whatever he wanted. Really. Think about it." - Steve Coast ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony wrote: >> >> I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing >> it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an >> equal footing with OSMF. >> > > Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no > interpretation where the footing is equal or identical, but I see what > you mean. Okay, true. I still think it accomplishes something very important which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA. OSMF doesn't get any special rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have. > My understanding was that this was not the intended outcome - that is > that OSM data should not be freely usable by everybody who receives > it. You must know more than I do, because I don't think you can speculate on the intent of a phrase without at least knowing who added it. It very well may have been added precisely for the effect of making everything effectively PD. I know that's the only reason I supported CT 1.2, though I wasn't dumb enough (this time) to point it out. > As I have already said, I'm not sure that your interpretation is 100% > certain. The CT's at the moment place an obligation on OSMF to licence > under one of a series of licences, which would be an odd requirement > if such a licence were superfluous. It's not superfluous, because the obligation on OSMF is to license the contents *as part of a database*. The ODbL applies to *the database*, not the contents. (In some/most/all jurisdictions, if you don't agree to it, you can probably ignore it, because there aren't any rights in the database. But probably in at least some jurisdictions you can't ignore it, due to sui generis database rights and/or sweat of the brow copyright in the database itself). Yes, it makes the DbCL part superfluous, but as I've explained before the DbCL, if *it* does not make the work effectively PD, is itself superfluous. And if you look at the history, the DbCL language was added at the same time the "and any party that receives your contents" was taken out (http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Terms&diff=231&oldid=204 which, by the way, was *after* the vote). In any case, even if the requirement were superfluous (which, as I explained, it isn't), I don't see any alternative explanation. (*) It has been pointed out previously that we should probably *require* OSMF to release the database under a free license, rather than merely *allow* them to, but as it stands they may, but don't have to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Anthony" >> I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing >> it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an >> equal footing with OSMF. > > Could you : > > a) explain the above last paragraph; and > b) define "us"; is it OSM contributors, OSM data users, or some other "us" "Us" would be every party that receives a copy of OSM, contributors or non-contributors. Under the proposed CT 1.2 (*), everyone who receives a copy of OSM has the same rights. OSMF doesn't have special rights which the rest of "us" don't have. (*) ...as I last read it. There have in the past been changes made to the CT 1.2 without incrementing the version number, so I have no idea what it *currently* says. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > I think it's the fact that we have an actual documentation of the > permission to trace. Yahoo's is pretty much just an unwritten/informal > agreement. Except that at the point we don't. At this point, we have an unclear agreement which an employee from Microsoft says gives permission to trace. Which is the same as what we have in the case of Yahoo, except that Yahoo's agreement (the terms of service) is not specific to openstreetmap.org. And most importantly, in neither case (Microsoft nor Yahoo) is there any statement at all by the copyright holder of the actual imagery. This only works because (or if, or to the extent that) tracing does not create a derivative work in the first place. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Steve Coast wrote: >>> On 12/01/2010 02:31 PM, David Groom wrote: >>> >> - Original Message - From: "Anthony" Isn't >>> >> http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the "prior written >>> >> consent from Microsoft". >>> > >>> > I'm not sure it is, or certainly if it is enough. >>> >>> Anthony's weaponized literalism >> >> What a fantastic phrase! > > What can I say? Figuring out what legalese actually means, and using > that meaning to its maximum advantage, is what I do for a living. By the way, I should point out that my question about http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details was just that, a question. David Groom responded with a number of good points that put into doubt the answer to that question. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Steve Coast wrote: >> On 12/01/2010 02:31 PM, David Groom wrote: >> >> - Original Message ----- From: "Anthony" Isn't >> >> http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the "prior written >> >> consent from Microsoft". >> > >> > I'm not sure it is, or certainly if it is enough. >> >> Anthony's weaponized literalism > > What a fantastic phrase! What can I say? Figuring out what legalese actually means, and using that meaning to its maximum advantage, is what I do for a living. There’s "no such thing as a technicality or a loophole. The law is the law. If you find that it's the law, call it what you want, it's the law!" - CrowJD, paraphrasing law professor Donald Wilkes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > The better question to ask at this stage is, what is it for not what > does it do? I didn't draft or propose this wording, but someone must > have done and someone, or some people, must have an idea of what its > function is supposed to be. > > It may be that a better wording to do (whatever it turns out to be > for) will solve the problem, or it may be that there's a policy > argument, which can be sorted out first before you get to the wording. I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> fx99 wrote: >>> >>> 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant >>> to OSMF >>> and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, . >>> >>> can somebody explain to me, who is meant by "any party that receives Your >>> Contents" ? >> >> Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads "your contents" from >> the OSMF servers? > > How does this grant interact with 3? Without 3 it would effectively PD the > data wouldn't it? Even with 3 it will effectively PD the data. Damn. I was hoping no one was going to notice that before the terms went into effect :). > I appreciate that the DbCl effectively does this as well, and that in both > cases the ODbL is what adds the share-alike; I'm just checking. ;-) You can't "add share-alike" to something which is already public domain. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:34 AM, David Groom wrote: > Whereabouts is the "prior written consent from Microsoft" which would enable > us to trace and thus create derivative works? > > David > > [1] http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details Isn't http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the "prior written consent from Microsoft". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Why is the data protected?
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > Isn't the content the users provide just facts (at least the > coordinates, some tags could be questionable)? I don't think it's quite that simple. If I draw a complex intersection on a piece of paper, that's not a fact, but an expression of a fact. Likewise, if one creates a complex intersection in OSM, I'd argue that it's no different from creating it on a piece of paper. It's an expression of (a large number of) facts. Is the expression obvious? In most cases, probably. Just trace down the center of the road, right? To the extent that's all people do, even the expression, while not purely factual, is uncopyrightable (*). But then, add in a merge between two roads. Ask 10 different people to map that situation, and I bet you get more than 2 different answers. When do you start the merge? When do you complete the merge? Try it different ways some time, and see how it renders. Or just look at the OSM data at onramps/offramps and notice how different people chose different ways to express the facts. I think the answer is that the substance of OSM is almost completely factual. But there's that other tiny fraction of content which I'd say is copyrightable (*). So I think it would be wrong, legally as well as morally, for OSMF to simply ignore the underlying license. (*) Probably, in most jurisdictions. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > I would argue now that before the new CT (since March 2010 if I'm right) > there wasn't a real CT at all (for me the simple sentence used is just too > vague and let many questions unanswered). Therefore I think even if you have > any problems with the new license, as a mapper, you should welcome the new > CT if you want that OSM in future is build upon a stable fundament. I would welcome *a* new CT, along with the old CC-BY-SA. Both the 1.0 and 1.2 CTs have problems, though. A proper CT would be something like: 1) Everything you submit is either completely owned by you or on a list of exceptions deemed by OSMF to be compatible with OSM (**). 2) You grant OSMF with a license to your contents under CC-BY-SA (2 or later), and you further grant them permission to sublicense your contents under CC-BY-SA (2 or later). 3) OSMF grants you (and everyone else in the world) a license for the entire contents of OSM, under CC-BY-SA (2.0). 4) OSMF promises to always license everyone's submissions under CC-BY-SA (2 or later). The purpose of this CT is to help alleviate the questions about chain of title which otherwise would plague (and except for the CT, currently do plague) the ability of commercial users to use OSM. CT 1.0 goes too far, to the point where it is being blatantly ignored. CT 1.2 doesn't go far enough, as a vague "I think my stuff is compatible and you can remove it if it isn't" provides little assurance at all. Maybe something in-between, in the form of a list of exceptions, editable only with OSMF approval, would be doable. (**) Exceptions would mainly be imports from people/organizations which themselves agreed to the CT, or compatible data where the chain of title was extremely clear (e.g. data collected by a government entity, released as PD or CC-BY). In extreme cases, exceptions might be made for imports from sources which didn't agree to the CT, because to not allow them would greatly hinder OSM (e.g. if a major player forked OSM and refused to sign the CT), but this would have to be decided on a case by case basis. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Anthony, > > you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike to > which I replied: > > On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote: >>>> >>>> If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes >>>> or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set >>>> of people that can change at any time. Make simple rules and I will be >>>> happy. > >>> How can we have the hubris to say "we know what's best >>> for OSM in 10 years"? > >> Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that. >> On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future. > > The above statement was about creating fixed licenses without any loopholes > - Mike said we should do it, I replied it was a bad idea. This was not about > opting out of future changes. It's a bad idea to create fixed licenses without any loopholes? Unlikely, maybe, but then, that's why there's "or any later version". The contributor terms go far beyond the ability to merely fix loopholes, as can be seen by the very switch from CC-BY-SA to ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > How can we have the hubris to say "we know what's best > for OSM in 10 years"? Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that. On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I would sincerely ask > anyone who feels the desire to pull the rug from under the project's feet in > 10 years time if the project doesn't do what one likes: please recosider, > and if you still cannot trust the project enough that you can let go of your > contribution, then leave. I agree. But I'd like to add: Don't just leave. Leave and support a fork. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Picture yourself next to 100 people who > have come after you, who have taken what you have given to the project and > who have built on it, improved it, made it "their" project. > > Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is mine, and if those > 100 people in 10 years make any step that I don't like then I will withdraw > my work from under them? I don't know about "any step that I don't like". But if the project in 10 years, with 100 times as many people, attempts to use your work in a way which you feel would be actively harmful, it's not only right to withdraw your work, it would be wrong not to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Rob Myers writes:
>>What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a
>>database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the
>>granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we
>>regard points, ways, uploads or any other unit as the content of the
>>database. The content of the database is any pieces of data smaller than
>>the entire database.
>
> Anything - so a planet dump of Germany is the 'content'? Or if that is too
> much, what about a smaller extract the size of your neighbourhood?
Has this point been addressed? The way I see it, there are only two
possible interpretations of the DbCL license grant. 1) That it
affects all the contents, in whatever size the extract may be, and the
only thing that is *not* covered by the DbCL is the selection of the
contents, the metadata (e.g. table column names), and the indexes. 2)
That it affects only tiny extracts of data which are already public
domain anyway.
Is it okay to use the data to create a CC-BY-SA map of Germany? Is it
okay to use that very same data to create, and release under CC-BY-SA,
an XML (or PBF) description of that very same map? What about an SVG
map?
One key provision of the DbCL seems to be this. The DbCL "does not
cover any Database Rights, Database copyright, or contract over the
Contents as part of the Database." As I'm in a jurisdiction without
Database Rights, and don't plan to accept the ODbL contract, I'm
mainly concerned with what the part about "Database copyright" means.
Maybe it covers the selection of the contents, except to the extent
that the selection is obvious ("all roads", "all water features", "all
points of interest"). Maybe it covers the metadata and indexes,
except that this is already covered by the GPL license on the Rails
Port. So most importantly for me is the question as to whether or not
it covers the copyright, if any, on the ways themselves.
If it does, if the copyright, if any, on the ways themselves, is
public domain, then I don't see how there are any restrictions at all
for people in a non-database-rights jurisdiction who refuse to accept
the ODbL.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Matthias Julius wrote: > No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the > work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might > have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law > (copyright, database right, patent right, ...). What is not restricted by > the law is permitted. Depends how the license is written. If it's written as a unilateral conditional waiver (GPL, CC-BY-SA, Artistic License 1.0), then indeed it can only give permissions. However, if it's written as a bilateral contract (ODBL), then it might give permissions *and* impose restrictions. In the latter case, it's also very difficult to enforce. See Jacobsen v. Katzer for an explanation of these principles, which, while not directly applicable outside the jurisdiction of that particular court of appeals, gives a very sound explanation of the legal principles which should extend far outside its particular jurisdiction. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
>> Maybe we should work on that bit then. Not give the individual an >> opt-out right, but instead force OSMF to publish. Something like: "As a >> condition of this agreement, OSMF agrees not only to license the >> database under the licenses given, but also to make the database >> publicly available" or so. > > Yes, that would certainly be an improvement over the current wording. Agreed, it would be a much needed improvement. Moreover, why not force OSMF to publish under CC-BY-SA? Then you don't even have to delete the work of the people who don't agree to the CT. People keep drawing an analogy between the OSM move and the Wikipedia one, and that's what Wikipedia did. They dual licensed Wikipedia under *both* the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA. > > But let me change my thought experiment to something less absurd: > Let us assume the OSMF have a vote to change the license of OpenStreetMap to > Public Domain some time in the future. Let us also assume that the community > is highly devided on this issue, with 25% of the active contributors in > support, 20% in opposition, and 55% not caring either way. The license change > is then not approved under the CT. Let us assume that the PD-supporters are > greatly annoyed by the fact the a minority of 20% can prevent what they > consider to be a vital step for the future of OpenStreetMap. The OSMF > therefore releases a new version of the CT replacing the 2/3 majority with a > simple majority. Everyone who does not agree to the new CT is prevented from > further contributions. After 6 months, none of the PD-opponents are active > contributors any more, so their contributions can easily be relicensed by a > 2/3 majority decision. > > Of course, such a series of events would be hightly damaging to the community. > But if the current CT are forced on PD-opponents in a similar vein, then the > harm to the community will be done even sooner. > > Bye, > > Olaf > > ___ > 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] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Matthias Julius wrote: > The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0. They clearly are not, as of the 1.2 draft. Among other things, the section 2 grants are expanded, to include "database right or any related right". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the > better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one. > > If, however, you intend to "protect" our data by putting it under a > share-alike data, then any additional license you add weakens that > "protection". Your suggestion would effectively kill the relatively strong > share-alike element of ODbL that requires people to share the database > *behind* a produced work, rather than just the work itself. So why are you, as a PD advocate, in favor of the ODbL? That aspect of ODbL is particularly nasty, if in fact it is enforcible. Whether or not it is, once you throw the DbCL into the mix, I don't know. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain >> the text) "you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY". >> Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but >> the ODbL does not *say* you can do so. > > It contains, in combination with the DbCL, the permissions required to do > so. And I never said it didn't. >> That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I >> find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is >> indisputable, was questioned. Search the ODbL for the string "CC-BY". >> You won't find it. > > Search the ODbL for the string "proprietary licence". > > You won't find it. Correct. > So if what you are saying is correct the ODbL > doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either. I have no idea where you're getting that from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Frederik Ramm writes: > >>>One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say* >>>"you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY". >> >>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM. > > As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents'. Could > you > explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they > differ from the 'database' itself? I should also point out, in case it's not obvious, that Frederik didn't address my point at all. The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain the text) "you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY". Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but the ODbL does not *say* you can do so. That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is indisputable, was questioned. Search the ODbL for the string "CC-BY". You won't find it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Frederik Ramm writes: > >>>One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say* >>>"you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY". >> >>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM. > > As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents'. Could > you > explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they > differ from the 'database' itself? And round and round we go. *If* the DbCL applies to the "database contents", then as soon as you take the data out of the database (substantial or otherwise), you have unrestricted data which you can do whatever you want with (including create a new, CC-BY database, and putting the data in it). On the other hand, if the DbCL applies to "the individual database contents"... I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Either it means the same as "the database contents" above, or it means you can use DbCL for an insubstantial extract but not the combination of multiple extracts (i.e. it is meaningless). If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial extract of data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Anthony writes: > >>>>So a license from, say, MapQuest, >>>>granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers >>>>MapQuest's copyright, > >>>...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA >>>map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, > >>Well, depends on what you mean by that. MapQuest certainly can >>(physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the >>bottom of the screen saying "this map tile is released under >>CC-BY-SA". > > Right, and I could photocopy today's Financial Times and put the same notice > on it, but that's not what I mean by 'can' or 'cannot'. Okay, I figured you didn't. But I still don't know what you do mean. >>And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing >>so. Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably >>irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing >>so. Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that >>the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against >>copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing >>(etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA. >> >>On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA, >>if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL. > > Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here > disagree with.) Which part of the interpretation do you question? It's quite plain that ODbL doesn't allow sublicensing. On the other hand, yes, DbCL does. So another, separate question, is what in the world the DbCL is supposed to apply to (a question I've asked here before, and which received several contradictory answers). If the data embedded in the Produced Work is DbCL, then yeah, you can sublicense it under any license you want. Of course, that would mean that there's nothing wrong with recreating a database from that embedded data. I think you've explained the situation correctly in the past, and we're almost completely in agreement. Either the produced work can't be CC-BY, or you can reverse engineer the produced work to create a CC-BY database. However, I present a practical problem to that. What if it's technically illegal to create a CC-BY produced work, but OSMF refuses to enforce that? > Ah - so although you are authorized to distribute produced works, those who > receive them may not be authorized to distribute them further. This may be > the crux of the issue. Others are authorized to distribute them further (so long as they include/offer the underlying db/changes). But aren't authorized to put them back in DB form. But, as I've said, I don't see how you can characterize such a work as truly CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't > covered by BY-SA. Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > Anthony writes: >>The way I read it, Your Contents = "the material contributed by You, >>as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work" > > So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents' > would effectively be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other > People's > Contents'. Correct. Of course, even if you're not breaching a contract by intentionally bulk-uploading data which is incompatible with the current license, that doesn't mean you can't be blocked and/or have your edits reverted for doing so. That seems like the better place to address the issue anyway. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
