Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Am 05.06.2011 02:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm: ... because that's when they intend to systematically delete > and re-map everything that has not yet been relicensed. There are a lot of open questions that have to be solved BEFORE any official licence change or "private" cleaning up the data ... - version history is incomplete: ways, which were splitted or joined, have lost parts of version history including mappers, that don't acceppted - what's about deleted objects? If a mapper, who don't accepted, for example has deleted a POI and mapped a building with similar tags, the building has to be deleted, but also the POI has to be restored?! So changesets may have to be verified for such things ... - Might be that it is not necessary to delete trivial edits (Might be "trivial" depends on the country of the edit ...) - ... and surely a mapper may decide to accept lately ... - ... So a "private clean-up" befor this questions are solved might - delete objects where it is not necessary (trivial, change decision) - not delete objects where it is necessary (splitted/joined ways which where partially mapped of non accepting mappers) - violate copyright, if he "copy" the old object - ... Heiko ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (Not) "Removing" data
Michael Collinson schrieb: One question, I think from Liz, was "who decided to remove data". As starter of the thread "decision removing data" I claim to be the copyright holder of this question1 I thougt it might be an easy question, so without copyright. But it seems to be a very complicate question, because no answer yet, so the question may have some creativity in it, so it is copyrighted ;-) > That got me thinking as there was never any explicit decision point. I hope that this is not true ... If someone does not accept the new license, (I am really thinking of folks who never respond) and we have reasonable made efforts to reach them, are we really obligated to remove their data from the ODbL live database unless they exert their original copyright and request us to do so? A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views? Precedents? I'm still dreaming of a process without any loss of data and without any fork like Wikipedia and others had it ... Yes, their old licences seem to be easyer for this goal ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
John Smith schrieb: On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs wrote: I don't want youre private guesses. I want to have official facts. Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only going to get guesses. As you weight in the court ... They also will ask for "OSMF decided", not for "Frederik guessed" ... As you weight in the court ... Which copyright is relevant for edits in XY besides CC? National copyright law of XY? Or copyright law of GB (OSMF, server)? I would guess ;-) first one? Because all talk about differences of protection of data between USA, GB, Germany, Australia, ... What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too? The reason for the data loss is as Frederik wrote, And where I can find, that OSMF follows Frederiks opinion? ;-) A lot of things around the point of data loss are very absurd, indeed ... You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new "freer" data back in and we'll be able to then license under the most freest license possible so there is no restrictions at all on anything ever again. Yes I'm a member of the first camp ;-) But I would also say, it is an idealistic camp, too. I'm an idealist with the opinion, that all will work together to make the data better for a better world ;-) and not want to go back some years to old bad geometry and old bad tags only to obey some mappers, that are unreachable ... To put errors in a map to have fun while closing the gaps again is not an idealistic point of view for me ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Heiko, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data? Because. as I explained to you yesterday, CC-BY-SA does not allow redistribution of data under a different license; so once the data is distributed under ODbL, anything that is CC-BY-SA and not relicensed has to be removed. I don't want youre private guesses. I want to have official facts. For such an important thing, for my opinion every mapper has the right to read a document where the reasons of the loss of data are well documented to analyze and understand it for it's own decisions. Thousands of words are already written down to declare, why the change of licence is necessary and why the new licence is better than the old one. Thanks for that to everyone who write this. What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too? If we forgot the official reasons or if they had no worth to write them down then we should also simply forget to remove any data ... ;-) Next thing you request to see the board meeting minutes that give the reason why we're not allowed to copy from Google, OSM has not to decide wether Google allows copying or not. So I can't ask it. You use absurd examples do draw off the attention from well-founded, but unanwsered questions. That's absurd, and you're making a clown of yourself by repeating your question every two days. A lot of things around the point of data loss are very absurd, indeed ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
May I set a reminder to a mail of mine? Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data? For such an inportant thing like removing data from OSM project while licence change anyone here should know, where the reasons of this decisionare written down... If we forgot the official reasons or if they had no worth to write them down then we should also simply forget to remove any data ... ;-) Heiko Jacobs schrieb: Richard Weait schrieb: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Hello I searched without success in the Wiki who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed. In http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan&oldid=488199 up to 2010-06-22 this questions stayed open: " Week 13 (approximate) Final cut-off. Community Question... What do we do with the people who have said no or not responded?" But the discussion (and decision) seems to be much older ...? The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only, have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you suggest that they should not have a choice? If the OSMF Board were to decide, "okay, that's it. All the data is relicensed" without asking contributors, is that in line with their mandate to assist OpenStreetMap but not control it? What would you suggest as an alternative? Before I will discuss this points I want to see the official decision and on which base this decision was made. For such an important decision I assumed that is written down. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Heiko Jacobs wrote: I'm still searching the former decision (of LWG or any other) that the removal of data is mandatory and WHY it is on which legal base of copyright, CC or anything other. I don't think that there is any decision necessary. CC-BY-SA says data must only be distributed under CC-BY-SA, and ODbL is != CC-BY-SA so that's that. The decision might be a vote or might be a statement, but the reason should be documented that others can follow it or not and can discuss it. I also still searching archived versions of old (pre double licensing) versions of contribution terms. You answered it in talk-de citing a small sentence but with a preceding "I guess" ... An archive without guess would be fine ;-) You should be able to find that in the rails_port source code history. thanks, i try to find i there Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hello First thanks a lot for some unknown (and known) interesting pages. Frederik Ramm schrieb: That again referenced the implementation plan at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan Which, under the "What do we do with people who have said no or not responded" sentence that you quoted, linked to And this sentence says up to 2010-06-21, that this has to be decided. But > The final proposal linked from that E-Mail was: > http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf ... already says, that IS decided, that data has to removed ... So the other page was wrong for half a year ... While the proposal and plan have been drafted by the LWG before that date, and certainly have been the result of some discussion, the formal *decision* to proceed along the proposed lines was taken by the OSMF membership in that vote. I'm still searching the former decision (of LWG or any other) that the removal of data is mandatory and WHY it is on which legal base of copyright, CC or anything other. Such an important decision and its reason should be well documented for the mappers ... I'm just missing this ... The pages you linked only show discussions of the consequences of this decision, but not the real reasons of it. I also still searching archived versions of old (pre double licensing) versions of contribution terms. You answered it in talk-de citing a small sentence but with a preceding "I guess" ... An archive without guess would be fine ;-) Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Richard Weait schrieb: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Hello I searched without success in the Wiki who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed. In http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan&oldid=488199 up to 2010-06-22 this questions stayed open: " Week 13 (approximate) Final cut-off. Community Question... What do we do with the people who have said no or not responded?" But the discussion (and decision) seems to be much older ...? The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only, have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you suggest that they should not have a choice? If the OSMF Board were to decide, "okay, that's it. All the data is relicensed" without asking contributors, is that in line with their mandate to assist OpenStreetMap but not control it? What would you suggest as an alternative? Before I will discuss this points I want to see the official decision and on which base this decision was made. For such an important decision I assumed that is written down. Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hello I searched without success in the Wiki who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed. In http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan&oldid=488199 up to 2010-06-22 this questions stayed open: " Week 13 (approximate) Final cut-off. Community Question... What do we do with the people who have said no or not responded?" But the discussion (and decision) seems to be much older ...? Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Lars Aronsson schrieb: The perpetual discussion over licenses is very tiring, but I can put up with that. What I just can't tolerate is this kind of argument that professional lawyers have some absolute authority, that trumps every contributor's opinion. I'm not saying that these lawyers are wrong, but the argument that they are correct because they are professionals is a stupid kind of argument. It's like saying that professional programmers wrote this software, so now we can't ever modify it. Most people are involved in free software and open content projects exactly because they don't like being told such things. If these lawyers told OSMF board to push totalitarian authority as an argument towards contributors in an open content project, then you should ask to get your money back, because that would be useless advice. +1 Especially if the lawyers tell, that a loss of data and so throwing away a part of the work of the community is necessary for licence change I can't tolerate this. Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Rob Myers schrieb: Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences "compatible" with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible with cc-3.0-by-sa would be a way to avoid all loss of data and problems with asking all members and all other problems? Then we should search a compatible way ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Heiko Jacobs wrote: A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with "home copies" of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data has traveled. But on his travel using the "physical path OSM" data changes ... The original mapper makes his GPS track suitable to existing data in OSM and other mappers will modify this data For example, there's dual-licensed software where you can either use it under GPL or pay for a commercial license. You don't have to re-download the software when you switch from GPL to commercial but this software is dual licenced frmm beginning, not relicenced, and it's GPL not CC, that may be a difference, too Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > Heiko Jacobs wrote: >> A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with "home copies" of the >> data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their >> own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a >> condensation of CC-OSM ... > > So if they violate the licence, they'll be sued by the copyright holder, > right? > > I look forward to Richard Fairhurst suing Richard Fairhurst for violating > the license on Richard Fairhurst's data. If you read my last mails you may know that I don't like any loss of data with the only reason of relicencing OSM ... Up to now the only possibility of voting to fail the licence change including any loss of data is to say, that my own data has not to be relicensed, hoping that the critical mass is not reached ... That's not very satisfiable for me and the community, if the change does not fail, because I will lose my login and all my data are lost ... You say, that Richard may suing Richard ... Because of this I just got a new idea: I say yes for changing licence and after relicencing I am suing OSMF to put the new data under CC again because it is still under CC following the contents of CC... Or any other user of "ODBL"-OSM may use the data still under old CC licence because it is really still under CC licence and no one can sue them with success because of they are right ... Frederik said in one mail (I don't know if also in english, I just remember his german mail) that "we" promised that the mappers work is protected by CC, but we remark, that this don't work, so we need a better licence. But because we made a promise, we cannot find an easy solution to transfer ALL data to ODBL and must skip some data of unreachable and declining mappers. Now we will make a new promise, that the mappers data is now really protected under ODBL, but again this may doesn't work ... We should find a way to protect data without making unclear promises ... ... and without any loss of data ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Richard Weait schrieb: Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published planets, > for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss. > The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA. Yes indeed. Including ... We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the license upgrade, or we will not. ... the new planet which is called to be under ODBL. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode But it isn'nt, because the contributors who said "yes" for change don't give their "home copy" of their data a second time like in "7.b ... Licensor reserves the right to release THE WORK under different license terms" "the work" = "their original work" and not a copy of it. But the new "so called ODBL-OSM" is only an "vote-yes"-extract of the old CC-OSM so ... "1.b 'Derivative Work' means a work based upon the Work ... such as a ... condensation ..." ... is suitable, so ... "4.b You may distribute ... a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan)." ... also a "so called ODBL-OSM" ist still under CC and only under CC. A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with "home copies" of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] new OSM, supposed ODbL, will be still CC-BY-SA ?!
Frederik Ramm schrieb: here's an interesting one. May I add another one? ;-) Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). In the german forum someone just found 7.b in CC-by-sa: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work)." And he had the opinion, that such date will never can change the licence. I answered: obey the next sentence: "Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms" So the way proposed would be Mapper "M" created a way "W", gave W to project "P-C" under licence CC-by-sa "C" P-C has the right to publish it for ever, but only under C ... but P-C must not do it, P-C may die ... Mapper M may gave W also to project "P-O" under licence ODBL/DBCL "O" P-O has the right to publish it for ever, but only under O ... (or combine to other products under licences X, Y, Z, ...) that's the way proposed: P-C will die officially (OSM under CC-by-sa), might be a last-CC-planet.osm exist, but also this is not necessary to fullfill CC-by-sa ... a new P-O will be opened officially (OSM under ODBL/DBCL, casually on the same hardware as P-C ...) with all M's which agree licence O So I anwered him that there is no problem ... Mmmmh ... Really no problem? That is the state at the beginning: M1 -> W1 -> P-C M2 -> W2 -> P-C M3 -> W3 -> P-C just now you may say, that: M4 -> W4 -> P-C/P-O M5 -> W5 -> P-C/P-O CC-by-sa says, that there is no problem with: M2 -> W2 -> P-O M3 -> W3 -> P-O M4 -> W4 -> P-O M5 -> W5 -> P-O (assuming M1 don't want to give his data under O) But how to do this technically? W2, W3, W4, W5 mostly only exists in P-C, because a mapper seldomly saves all his ways locally ... So the technical onliest possible way is P-C -> W2 -> P-O P-C -> W3 -> P-O P-C -> W4 -> P-O P-C -> W5 -> P-O but P-C has licence C (not only for old date, for new ones double licenced, too, because infected) and all data extracted from P-C also must have licence C so P-O is still under licence C (which don't allow another licence?) so skipping licence C in P-O failed ... If I write a book and gave it under CC-by-sa to the publishing house A, than I may give it also to publishing house B under licence XY. The processs proposed now for OSM "translated to books": "Sorry, I don't have anymore a CD containing my book, hey B, please scan the book from A and republish it unter XY instead of CC" then XY fails ... Mh... Do we have any problem? (Besides lot of other problems ...) If we state, that we can't trace data from last-CC-planet.osm to ODBL-OSM, we also cannot "copy" digitally from it for ODBL-OSM, because this data is CC-infected for ever ... And the mapper cannot change this by only saying "yes" ... We not only have to ask the mapper, if he give us a second licence, HE also has to give us HIS way and only HIS data without edits ... and so on ... I fear, that only throwing away data from mappers, who say no or nothing, is no way to skip CC ... ??? P-O is still a derivative Work of P-C under CC only!? Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John Smith schrieb: On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? Liz schrieb: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote: >>> Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, >> In the US. >> >>> OKFN >>> seem to think it might. > > After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable > to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was > the subject of the case. > The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That > would need court hearings to determine. > Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to > negotiate terms >- The entity representing the data does not 'own' the data and it could > be argued has no right to be a party to a contract over the data ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Roland Olbricht schrieb: - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the legalese. I would say that the new licence might be good, beter than the old one BUT: I also interested MUCH MORE in the data than the legalese. The last days I read a lot on the process proposed on changing the licence, especially about the technical way of deciding which node/way might be ok, which not, if anyone of the mappers decided to say no. I saw that there will never be a solution that can work. E.g. the history is incomplete if ways are splitted or joined, so you cannot see all data affected of such mappers. Also you cannot decide, which copyright is more valuable if to persons did something. There were a lot of examples etc. in german forum and talk-de mailing list from me and others, but my english is not goog enough to repeat them all. The process will never work, so stop this process and find another solution! The solution now ALWAYS leads to data loss, more or less. But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons. Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data. The process now gives me only one vote: a combination of new Contributor Terms, new licence for the whole project and new licence for my own data. Although the new licence is good: I have to say no because of the data loss, which ALWAYS will appear with changing licence. Much more arguments on talk-de But don't forget that one of the key features of the project is the message: "Care for the data and the applications - we promise you won't be affected by legal trouble". Thus, I would consider the license as a technical detail, like the change from API v0.5 to API v0.6. +1 Legal things are less logical than technical things, thus everybody would accept more collateral damage. No, why? Wikipedia has lost 0 bytes Then, the algorithm "unbroken chain of history of ODbL users" is close to nonsense. +1024! Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
