Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
Hello Kathleen, thank you for your clarifications. On 09/23/2020 at 02:42 PM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: GITNE, I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my legal opinion, based on the terms of the Contributor Agreement, is that changeset comments are part of OSM's geo-database. What I meant by legal assessment is that I would like to know what OSMF's layers think of this. I would assume that the OSMF has some sort of legal department, like the people who have drafted some of the fundamental legal documents (like Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Contributor Terms, ODbL etc) regulating some aspects of OSMF's operations. Note that the terms say: "OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences:.." So if changeset comments did not count as part of the geo-database, OSM would not have rights to use them, which would be contrary to the purposes of the Contributor Terms. I read it that OSMF will only ever use or sub-license content as a database (or part of). In other words, it is about the way or how OSM uses, handles, or redistributes (sub-licenses) content. Specifically, in a database. Sub-licensing means here that only specific licenses will be chosen, like the ODbL 1.0, DbCL 1.0, or CC-BY-SA 2.0, when redistributing content as a database. This provision does not qualify content. The first sentence of 1.2.4 does. Aside from that, I do not think you can assume or reason sort of backwards: Because the definition missed out on something we will reason from the application of the definition to what the definition was supposed to include. So, it is absolutely feasible that the Contributor Terms may lack something. Legal documents, laws, and regulations are not perfect. Nothing is. And, it is nothing to be ashamed of if anyone spots a loophole or gap in a legal document or regulation. It is an opportunity for improvement. The Contributor Terms have been drafted when OpenStreetMap was developing and was accepting not much more than map data contributions. So, it was sufficient to handle geo-database contributions only. Since then, OpenStreetMap has grown, new functionality and tools have been added. Perhaps OpenStreetMap's progress has outpaced its legal framework? Or maybe the legal framework did not keep up with OpenStreetMap's progress? I do not know. What I do know, is that “Content” is limited in scope to geo-database contributions in the Contributor Terms. Regards GITNE On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:34 AM Eugene Alvin Villar mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote: For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion comments shortly after they are added. There are lots of other ways of getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org <http://osm.org> itself. To provide some context, this Slack channel is simply forwarding the contents of an Atom feed generated by Pascal Neis here: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United States IANAL, but from an intellectual property point of view, I think Pascal creating RSS/Atom feeds of changeset comments per country falls under fair use/fair dealing. And there is a whole ecosystem of tools that process and consume RSS/Atom feeds, one of which is an integration in Slack was setup by someone so that comments on changesets in the United States are more visible to the people who are in the OSM US Slack. ~Eugene ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
Hello Christoph, On 09/23/2020 at 01:27 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: On Wednesday 23 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of the geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it seems the situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case (either way could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase. I see - yes, that is slightly different in nature - though i think all of the arguments i gave in principle still apply (including in particular that the OSMF publishes the changeset discussions under ODbL as well). Thank you for sharing your point of view, or interpretation of the Contributor Terms. The main difference i think is that contributions to changeset discussions have a higher likeliness to in themselves be subject to copyright (and not just database protection). Right, this is what I am concerned about too. Because this goes beyond changeset discussions. It applies to map notes and blog posts too. And personally, imho there are good reasons to not license other types of contributions than map data contributions under the ODbL. For example, take citations or excerpts from scientific works, patents, or government documents in comments, notes, or blog posts. Sure, contributors are primarily responsible for lawfully publishing content on the OSM website/service but on the other hand the OSMF has to protect itself too. The OSMF should not automatically “re-license” content it has no direct control over or knowledge of. Map content is far more limited in scope than free-form text, so it is fair and relatively easier to express and enforce the ODbL on this type of content. So, to sum things up, imho there are two ends of the story to this issue. One end of the story is that OSMF's non-geo-database content “acquisition” does not seem be covered by any contributor agreement (this the end you disagree with me over). The other end is that non-geo-database content cannot be simply re-licensed by the OSMF to ODbL terms. In other words, the question is what license terms apply to consumers of non-geo-database content? Furthermore, is the ODbL simply by its nature even applicable to non-geo-database (or non-database per se) content at all? Regards GITNE ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
Hello Frederik, On 09/23/2020 at 01:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote: The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing* content Surely Slack is doing that not out of their own decision, but because someone has instructed them (or their web service) to do so? *Irony Warning* Wait, so you are saying that things can happen just like that on their service and they are not responsible, not even partially, for what is happening? I did not know this could be a viable defense strategy. Okay, next time I screw up I am going to defend myself by blaming orders I had to follow. *End of Irony* Or, did I get something wrong? (for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour." (section 3.0) Right, assuming. ;-) Please, do not get me wrong, I am okay with profit. However, only as long as it is legal. Regards GITNE ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
On 09/23/2020 at 12:18 PM Andy Townsend wrote: On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote: Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link or something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an automated feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on one of their channels. For completeness, this discussion spun out of one at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90157565 which in turn spun off from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987 . If I may add that this discussion did not exactly spin out of any of these changesets but rather Slack's practice has been brought to my attention in a discussion on changeset 90157565. For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion comments shortly after they are added. There are lots of other ways of getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org itself. The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing* content (for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL nor the Contributor Terms. Regards GITNE ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
On 09/23/2020 at 11:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann mailto:chris_horm...@gmx.de>>: ... That changeset data is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an argument against it being covered by the contributor terms. Frequent discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the mapper community regards them as such. In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL... GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of the geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it seems the situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case (either way could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase. Right, the issue are not changesets since they are an integral part of the modifying processes of the geo-database and thus constitute a contribution to the geo-database. So, it also okay for the OSMF to distribute these either separately or inclusively under the ODbL license. The issue is about chageset comments or rather Changeset Discussions (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Changeset_Discussions). Please pardon my ignorance on the proper term. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg Changeset Discussions merely reference a changeset id. This is like linking to a web page or referencing a book in an article. If it were otherwise we would quickly get into trouble with all sorts of works referencing other works. Martin, please correct me if I am wrong but the database represented by the schema you have pointed to is not what is actually publicly available, that is what is licensed under the ODbL. In other words, the ODbL licensed database is a subset of OSMF's database (or an export so to speak) because it contains amongst other things e-mail addresses and password hashes which are not supposed to be published. Regards GITNE ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
On 09/23/2020 at 03:45 AM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: Hi GITNE, Can you also specify what you think the problem is? I am not sure if I can be more specific. So, I am just going to reword what I have written so that perhaps then things become clearer. In my understanding the Contributor Terms do not cover changeset comments, simply because they are not part of the geo-database, nor become at any time part of it. The same applies to user's blog posts or forum posts on OSM's website. They are not covered by the Contributor Terms either, again simply because they are not part of OpenStreetMap project's geo-database, or in other words, they are not contributed *to* the geo-database. I get the feeling that you have an objection to changeset comments being posted in Slack. I'm assuming such comments appear in the OSMUS slack group which is popular with mappers. Why do you think this is a bad thing? I do not object to Slack per se. It is a legitimate business like any other. However, I do object to the violation of copyright for profit, regardless of the entity who might be doing it. And, unfortunately this is exactly what Slack currently seems to be doing. (To be clear, I think your premise is wrong and that the definition of "Contents" in the Contributor Terms clearly includes changeset comments.) I beg to differ. “any other content” is limited in scope, namely by contribution “to the geo-database”. Besides, it is wise to do so, especially if you consider blog and forum post copyrights. Legitimate reasons exist for the OSMF to limit the scope of licensing to only certain types of contributions. Anyway, thank you Kathleen for your answer. However, I am unsure whether this your opinion or legal assessment? Because a legal assessment is actually what I would like to know. Regards GITNE ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
On 09/23/2020 at 02:19 AM Clifford Snow wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM GITNE mailto:gi...@gmx.de>> wrote: Hello OSMF Legal Team, due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset comments are automatically republished by the third party private company Slack, I would appreciate if you could share your legal assessment of this situation. More specifically, what is the copyright status of changeset comments and which OSMF document or agreement covers changeset comments? Can you be more specific? Where is the data being republished? Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link or something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an automated feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on one of their channels. Regards GITNE ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
Hello OSMF Legal Team, due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset comments are automatically republished by the third party private company Slack, I would appreciate if you could share your legal assessment of this situation. More specifically, what is the copyright status of changeset comments and which OSMF document or agreement covers changeset comments? As far as I can tell no document covers changeset comments either explicitly nor implicitly. The Contributor Terms state that “…contributing data and/or any other content (collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the “Project”)” is explicitly limited to contributions to the geo-database (map database). As far as I can tell changeset comments are not part of the OSM's geo-database. Changeset comments themselves do not contain any geo-data, they merely reference a changeset. The changeset contains geo-data and is what actually becomes part of the geo-database. Thus naturally changesets are covered by the Contributor Terms but not changeset comments. Consequently, it should be fair to assume that the copyright to changeset comments remains with their respective authors. However, since changeset comments are apparently neither explicitly nor implicitly covered by any agreement or license, it should be also fair to assume that by the act of creating comments on OSM's website commentators do grant copyright to the OSMF, though limited in scope. It is fair to assume that the scope is limited to the production or quality assurance of the map. I think that given this situation it should be very difficult to argue that commentators implicitly grant copyright to any other party than the OSMF, publish comments into the public domain, or for any extended purpose. Anyhow, imho either way it would not be wise—today's more fashionable word here would be “smart”—for the OSMF to grant changeset comment copyright to others. There are many good reasons why this should not happen. Just for one, changeset comments are not part OSMF's /product/, yet they are still publicly available and thus enable full transparency. So, there is really no need for others to reproduce them, especially for profit. Regards GITNE ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
