Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A really quick poll
Closing the poll. The results look like this: Place no restrictions whatsoever on the use of the map data (Use a Public Domain license) 41.1% 76 Ensure that users of the data contribute back any improvements they make (Use a share-alike license) 48.6% 90 I don't really care! 10.3% 19 Thanks for your feedback. -J On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please fill out this poll: http://sineltor.selfip.org/osm.php Thanks! Joseph ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me the main problem with copyleft licenses is that there are so many incompatible ones of them. Here's the compatibility chart amongst creative-commons licenses: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/blimg/cc-tw-license-compatibility-wizard.png Confusing, isn't it? And, not many licenses are actually compatible with each other. Barely any, once you take out the all licenses are compatible with themselves and everything is compatible with the PD Here's a great write-up with a guy bitching about; and concluding its better to just go PD. http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/347 PD has the advantage of being compatible with all of them. Philipp ___ 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] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
There is talk underway to do so. However, many of us feel that splitting the user base and splitting contributions would be destructive. We could produce better maps if we cooperated. Don't you agree? -J On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I ever start a open project again I will put a mission statement central to it. I think I was the one who originally wrote The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. I would add something about it being viral too as I feel strongly that that is pretty central to the success of things here. The real reason the PD folks don't go make ReallyFreeAndOpenStreetMapThisTime.org is they know it will never work. 10 people on the least signal/noise list in a project with 80,000 people in it aren't going to make the PD unicorn fly. Most people in the project that I speak to roll their eyes at this list because first it's full of ill or openly badly informed people making complex legal arguments and second that they clearly have a lot of time on their hands. I can't even make some of the people I respect most join the list! I applaud the structure that's developed recently and led to those use cases for example, but the notion that such a tiny minority would change things is about as likely as dropping all the software and moving to WFS-T. Fundamentally, if in some magic way we went PD all you will do is force the SA people to go start another project... so why can't the PD people skip all that effort and start their own? Then we can just import their stuff. We will be happy with our better dataset and our idea of freedom and the PD people will be happy dreaming about spaceships and their idea of freedom. On 25 Oct 2008, at 19:20, Joseph Gentle wrote: Steve: I'm confused. Please reconcile these two statements: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:50 PM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys OSM isn't going PD... can't you go start ReallyFreeAndOpenStreetMap.org or something? Best Steve On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a member of the foundation, but that doesn't entitle me to say something is or isn't a part of OSM. Also, if 'the community' does make decisions, whats the decision making process? Are informal email-list polls appropriate? Can we make web-based polls on the OSM wiki? How does the OSM foundation get feedback from the community? -J ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Best Steve ___ 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] Making OSM Public domain
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, lots of sensible and interesting discussion Frederik I agree with all of this. I don't want to confuse the issues; but I do want more data about the opinions of average mappers than an argument on the internet can provide. I am unfortunately frustrated with the foundation. To be able to say that OSM will never go PD, there must be data. If a poll were given to the community, I think it should look like this: Some people have different ideas of what 'free' should mean for our maps. Do you prefer that we: (o) Place no restrictions on the use of the map data [link to PD stuff] (o) Force anyone using maps based on OpenStreetMaps to share their improvements back to the community [link to SA stuff] [x] I believe so strongly about this that I would contribute less to the project based on what model of freedom it supports Further discussion of the pros and cons of each of these models can be found here [link]. I don't want to confuse this with the cc-by-sa - odbl license change. But, its hard for any of us to make decisions on the community's behalf without finding out what the community thinks. I agree completely with Liz - I think most people don't care what the license is; just that we pick one. Steve - it is for that reason that I don't want to duplicate effort maintaining two maps. Much better to have it all under one united roof. -J ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
I'm happy with that. Thankyou :) -J On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed anyone!! Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD Sebastian Spaeth: Wikipedia PD Rob Myers: CC Zero (Wikipedia PD) Gustav Foseid: CC Zero / Wikipedia PD According to this, Wikipedia style public domain dedication statement wins. CC Zero is not finished, and therefore cannot be used now. So Wikipedia PD it is?? Is this decision informal enough?? :) PDDL: http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ CC Zero: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCZero Wikipedia PD: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can they use and which they cannot?? Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD. I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public domain for OSM/PD. Simply because it is simple. Public Domain Dedication And License looks too complicated - I think it will scare people off. CC Zero is not finished. Once it is finished, I don't see any reasons why we couldn't later switch to CC Zero, if it turns out to be good. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don't relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn't because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it's PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkj+aC0ACgkQj6/6lS/XEIp+nwCeMjkQRU9qTcNNVaIWDYTDalRR 1cwAmwXFNT0lp/jPVbHdEi7x2jBYqrb6 =Ibli -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. I don't think its that big a deal - we could just say if you edit a node, your edits are also under the same PD license as the node is currently under or something. Its a bit icky; but I can't think of any real-world issues this causes. -J On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure this works. What happens when you add a poi under one licence, and I come and update the poi with some new bit of information, and want to use some other licence? It would mean that the single poi in under multiple licences. Or would we have a tagging war based on the licence, rather than the name of the roads? It is much simpler to have one licence for all the data. Shaun On 21 Oct 2008, at 15:25, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: I have no problem avoiding the moral rights quagmire. I think simplicity is one of the reasons to move to PD in the first place. I don't think it would be a problem to use the wikipedia public domain license now, and then consider a future move to something like the CC Zero. I would strongly recommend we do one thing that OSM hasn't done. That is require a tag for each feature that indicates the license the feature was released under. I know it's all PD, but this would allow us to sort and catagorize the data in the event of future legal interpretations or developments. I'd rather have a simple license tag then get to a point down the road where a large portion of the data has a cloud over its use because of some legal decision. The Sunburned Surveyor On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Gustav Foseid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Wikipedia version is the best current PD Dedication but I really would recommend waiting on CC Zero. CC Zero explicitly mentions database rights, which I think is a good thing, but I would be ahppy with the Wikipedia dedication as well. Regards, Gustav ___ 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 ___ 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] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote: Personally I'd be very happy to see the discussion of PD continue on the talk list but a mailing list seems a very minor resource compared to the time and effort that have gone into the creating the new license. I see the PD route as just giving up. It's too hard is not a good answer for me. It's clear that my opinion isn't global though. My motivation for being interested in this stems from an issue I had before the license was changed. I wanted to write an iphone application to help people catch public transport in my local area. The idea was that people could pull out their iphone, point on a map where they wanted to go and it would show them which bus stop to walk to, which busses to catch, how long it would take, etc. I intended to have an overlay on my map which showed bus stops. This data would be collected from the local bus company. Under the old license, I couldn't use OSM because I couldn't share the overlay. It might not have been a problem - but I couldn't risk it. This got me wondering - what applications will never be written because of the OSM SA licensing? I think this problem has changed with the new license; but _any_ share-alike license will have similar problems. I would love to see the same free mapping data used everywhere; by tourists, local councils, proprietary satnav systems, google earth, etc. I don't think this will ever happen with the OSM data because of the share-alike requirement. It would be similar to a linux license requiring you to also GPL any software you write on your computer. I know its not _that_ bad anymore, but I got idealistic. -J Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't we just be happen to produce maps and data people will want to use? Ian. We already produce maps and data people want to use. I also want the maps and data to be under a license which lets them be used. (More.) Will people contribute more if they are forced to? I don't know. IBM contributes to linux while apple contributes to FreeBSD. If history is any indicator, this argument will not be settled today. I'm sorry for my part in reigniting the flames. Clearly there are people who (for ideological and pragmatic reasons) think a pd map set would be valuable. The data will not be lost to OSM anyway. Should OSM support / host such a project? -J ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like so view OSM as a cool DIY project, not a political trick we're pulling. The problem with PD is that it permits companies to take OSM data, add their own data and benefit from result without giving anything back. Joseph's bus company could take OSM's PD data, add its own bus stops and publish the mobile app that Joseph wants. There is no incentive for them to make their bus stop data available. They gain and everyone else loses. Do you really feel comfortable about that happening? Absolutely. You seem to want to give them these choices: 1. They could draw their own proprietry map (or get a teleatlas license or something) 2. They could abandon the project completely 3. They could release all their transport data From talking to them, I have learned that they would rather abandon the project completely than release the data. (They don't see much value in the project, but they think they can sell their bus data) Which option would you prefer? They abandon the iphone bus project, they duplicate mapping effort and create another map or they could give funding to teleatlas? I would prefer they used our free maps. Especially since the 'local bus company' in question is my local state government. You say 'everyone else is worse off' if they use a PD map. It seems like the bus company wins - they have more passengers. The passengers win - they can learn about the busses more easily. The environment wins (less cars on the road). And the map wins. It gets more visibillity. Less time and effort goes to proprietry maps. More people have a vested interest in making the mapping data accurate. In time, the bus company will probably contribute some data to the map to correct mistakes and whatnot. It seems to me like everyone wins. Apple was in a similar situation. They chose to use freebsd (a PD-style OS). They use it in the underlying layers of Macosx. They are one of the most vicious, control-freak companies you'll find these days. Even though they don't have to, they contribute heaps of code back to freebsd. Given that apple was never going to open-source all of macosx, what would you rather they do? Is freebsd worse off because apple uses their product? No. Its much much better off. -J 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Sorry, I've been busy writing up research proposals and whatnot. I'm starting a phd next year (woohoo!). I don't like the standard creative commons PD license. Their CC-zero license is ok, but not finished. Here's the wikipedia license from earlier in the thread: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Here's the ODC Public Domain Dedication: http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ It is about 5 pages long. I am happy with either. We probably should just pick one. Unlike normal OSM, there is nothing viral about either license. It doesn't matter if some data has been dedicated using one PD license and some using another. If we find problems, we can probably just change licenses for future data while keeping all the old stuff. (The TIGER data and whatnot will probably be under a different license from everything else anyway. So will OSM data by users marked with PD. There's nothing wrong with that). I really like small simple licenses. They are easy for the rest of us to understand. However, I can certainly see the advantages to a big license like the ODC PD license. It is much more explicit about things like patents, databases, facts, etc. It explicitly mentions that code written to render the maps is not necessarily covered under the same license. I don't really foresee problems using a simple license, but a big license which is explicit about everything is probably better. However, I'm a bit nervous about the ODC PD license abandoning the publisher's moral rights. That means I can legally come along and say that I drew all the maps myself; or I could draw offensive pictures out of your roads and say that was you. I don't mind if people don't attribute me - but thats different from pretending you were the author. Jordan: Why is this in there? Can we take it out? My vote is for ODC-PD if the moral rights waiver is removed and the wikipedia pd license otherwise. -J On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Sunburned Surveyor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for doing that initial work Kari. I've been home with the flu, so I've been a little out of the loop. I think we could make decisions based on an informal vote of the OSM contributors interested in PD. As things get more serious we can use a more formal governance structure, if one is needed. I'll see if I can make more time to comment tomorrow, if I'm feeling better. I'd like to know what Jospeh thinks as well. Thanks again. Landon On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There is also a link from the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License to the new page. I listed all public domain licenses - we need to decide which one to use. How to make decisions? Voting? Also, there is a todo list. I'm not sure if it lists all the required actions, please correct it if it is wrong. - Kari On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...) To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work to produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to explain to say the least. Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which I suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it from the ODBL page. Thanks, Peter ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, I take back what I previously said to 80n about all PD advocates being on the same page ;-) We're very close, and we don't have to agree. Data published with free non-viral licenses can coexist peacefully. We're really arguing about what the default license for contributors should be. Joseph, with PD you don't get to dictate how the data is used. You waive all rights, including the right to be identified as the author. If someone takes the whole TIGER dataset and says he drew it up himself, I don't think there is anything to stop him - just that he makes a complete fool of himself because nobody will believe him. Thats not true. I don't think the US Government has waived their moral rights regarding the TIGER data. As I understand it, placing work in the public domain does not automatically waive your moral rights on the work. Same with your contributions to a PD database. EITHER your contribution is marginal so that someone can realistically claim he did it all by himself, in which case nobody can prove him otherwise - and even if your license did contain a bit about not allowing him to lie about the provenance of the data, he could still do it and not be found out. OR your contribution is substantial so that anyone can see that someone has used your data, in which case it would be plain stupid of someone to lie because he would be found out and his credibility destroyed. I don't understand the use case for people passing off my work as their own. I am a huge proponent of public domain; but I don't see how waiving moral rights ever helps. I understand if people want to use my work for any purpose. I understand them building it into their product, selling it, changing it, publishing it, putting overlays, etc. I'm happy with all of that. But if you waive moral rights they can also say Frederik is a liar if he said he made them. If you want these maps, you come to us because they are ours! I have no problem with anyone using the maps. I have no problem getting no attribution. But I have a problem with that sort of thing. The Berne Convention says it best: Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. (thanks wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights ) Note that this does not say people can't change or mutilate your data. It just says that the mutilation won't be attributed to you. I would be happy to waive moral rights if you can provide a useful use case for doing so. Until then, it feels dirty and I don't see the point. -J It would be his users who'd expect him to tell the truth about where he's got the data from - not us data providers. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
I was looking at the OSGeo data committee wondering where their data was as they seem to have the same goals as us. I don't think picking the right PD license will be a particularly large hurdle. It is certainly less complicated than selecting a share-alike license :) The wikipedia pd license looks good. I don't think it matters much where our mailing list is hosted. A google group would be fine; at least for the time being. Once we have project hosting somewhere and a project name we can move the mailing list. -J On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Sunburned Surveyor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems our idea for a public domain repository of OSM data has some merit. This means we have some things to decide on. A name, what vehicle we will use to release the data under the public domain, a host for our mailing list, and a sponsor for our data hosting needs. Should we just fire up a Google Group to communicate while we get these things hammered out, or would OSM support a public domain mailing list? Landon P.S. - I might be able to get the OSGeo Data committee to take an interest in our project and help out with a server for our repository. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'm the person who started the all my contributions are PD thing on the Wiki Seems I was wrong here, Wiki history lists RichardF as the inventor and myself as a mere follower a few weeks later! Well then, I guess, PD is not so great after all ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
The license is changing frustration is waning we can all see what the new license will be Some terms need explaining On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, SteveC wrote: Subject: License License License Can we hear that as a limerick? ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] OSMHQ (Open Street Map High Quality): Viable Alternative For The National Map Corps
I agree. Said sister project would have to ask Yahoo! for permission as well. However, if they give access to OSM they should give access to a PD version of OSM. Yahoo can do a lot more with the data a PD-OSM project generates. -J On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even if a sister project would set up the same toolchain, the same editors, databases etc. on a PD license, the sister project would miss the Yahoo satellite images. What kind of agreement has been made with Yahoo and does it allow other similar projects to use the images? BR, Kari On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Hi, Nathan Vander Wilt wrote: The last I'd heard on this sort of extraction is that it would be largely infeasible. The wiki has a bit of a thread on this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Dual_licensing_idea , which links to discussion about whose node but there has also been uncertainty raised regarding not just editing nodes themselves but what those nodes are edited in relation. I personally think that this is taking things a bit too far; remember that to earn rights to something that is created, your contribution must be non-trivial. We must be very careful with these claims of whose node etc., because they will work the other way round as well and I would not be surprised if (for example) if you were to set very strict rules you could find that half of OSM actually belongs to someone else (for example, how exactly have the aerial images and/or old maps we use been orthorectified?). Has this been further discussed, perhaps off-list, and determined to be feasible after all? If not, it seems to me that extraction would be more trouble (legal and technical) than it'd be worth. Why not start a sister project with known pure PD sources and just edit from there? It wouldn't be too late to do that, but we'd have to think carefully how the two projects could and should co-exist in the future. I.e. if I were to add data to the PD project I would like to add it to OSM at the same time, however if checking with OSM for duplicates will already bring on the whose node is it fraction telling me that I have now infected the PD version, that would then basically make it impossible for me to contribute to both at the same time and I would have to make a choice, which would be sad. Sure, it would be relatively easy to set up the same toolchain that OSM has on a parallel infrastructure, using the same editors, databases, renderers, just on a PD license. For the users it would be pretty transparent, you could basically switch from PD to Copyleft any time, using Copyleft where you just want to display something and using PD when you want to make a derived work. But it is going to be difficult for the editors. 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSMHQ (Open Street Map High Quality): Viable Alternative For The National Map Corps
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:02 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Even if a sister project would set up the same toolchain, the same editors, databases etc. on a PD license, the sister project would miss the Yahoo satellite images. What kind of agreement has been made with Yahoo and does it allow other similar projects to use the images? We do not have an agreement with Yahoo!. Rather, we have asked Yahoo! for clarification, and Yahoo! has examined their terms and conditions - without chaning them to accomodate us - and has said: Yes, we believe what you're doing is within the existing terms and conditions as long as you use our web API. *headdesk* should have read the whole thread before replying. I'll check out the yahoo agreement with a lawyer friend of mine on the weekend and find out what the deal is. -J Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Public Domain versus CC Attribution Share Alike License
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: I think it may underestimate the potential for corporate abuse. There are a lot of people out there willing to leech of a community like OSM without making any positive contributions. It happens in the software world a lot. Yes - but frankly, I don't care whether TeleAtlas or whoever use my data for their commercial gain, as long as I have full access freedom myself. Sure, Google could pull all our PD data into their Map Maker... but I'd read that as a compliment. Likewise. Further, I am appauled at the idea that, in the process of punishing TeleAtlas we would also stifle other map-related innovations which people could potentially do if only they could use our maps. -J Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Public Domain versus CC Attribution Share Alike License
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:29 AM, spaetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:51:36AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: What can't you do with OSM data under the Creative Commons license that you couldn't do with data in the Public Domain? To me it seems like the only two (2) major differences are sharing your improvements to the data and attributing the work of OSM. That's basically it, correct? A bit more tricky, but I am not a lawer. 1) It's unclear how to attribute data. Theoretically every contributor to OSM data can request that he is to be attributed. I can just see the credits screen scrolling past before you can get to see any map. For this exact reason OSM can not even take any other data that is published under the same license as OSM. We just cannot guarantee proper attribution. Which is different from public domain and is different from the GPL. and sucks majorly. Similar as in software the question remains unclear of what a derived and what a combined work constitutes. If I work at some secret agency and print the locations of the secret nuclear facilities on an OSM map, I can't prevent the Mossad from publishing the thing after I've given it to them over the weekend. The combined work is CC_BY_SA now. Or let me print a book with hiking routes and put lots of OSM maps in there. I want to see the lawyer that guarantees you that you won't be sued as not the whole book is being given away under a CC-BY-SA license. He won't. Part of the problem is that the data is currently owned by the contributors. The problem with this is that, even if most of the OSM people are nice and reasonable, nobody can guarantee that one guy with a vendetta against your project won't try to sue you. There's a bunch of ways even pretty reasonable uses of OSM could leave you legally liable: - You don't acknowledge _everyone_ - You don't share-alike the whole webpage your map is embedded in, or the book in which the map exists. I'm not sure if they would win such a lawsuit (nobody does!!) But even the open possibility means heaps and heaps of potential OSM users / contributors shy away from our lovely maps simply for legal reasons. To be perfectly honest, thats totally crap. -J Is showing additional data on an overlay that can be turned off creating a derivative? Is printing it on a OSM paper map a derivative? Not impossible to answer but no definitive. People will always tell you, ask your lawyer or wait for the judge to decide :-). It's not like the current Creative Commons license for OSM forbids commercial use. So the only organizations that would benefit from mapping data in the public domain would be organizations that can't share data improvements because of security or competition concerns, or those that don't want to attribute OSM as a source. Is that correct? commerical use is fine. but theoretically you need to attribute the whole chain of users in CC-BY-SA. Which can get pretty unwieldy if you want to print a map and you have to credit 500 agencies and 5 mappers and everyone else who ever touched the thin. Note that these views and opiniions are entirely my own and private ones and not OSM view points. And I am not a lawyer either :-). spaetz ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing: What happens next
We have all argued incessantly about licensing issues. That does not help the OSM project. What will probably happen - The OSM foundation will email our 50 000 contributors saying: Hi everybody. Thanks for your contributions. We want to relicense your data to this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License . Follow this link to accept. If not, we'll have to purge your data from our database - and thats a huge pain in the arse. Then there'll be this weird interum period where they sort of fork the database and re-fill in the bits which were originally submitted by people with (now) new email addresses. What I would like to happen -- Hi everybody. Licensing is a huge pain in the arse. Click here to throw your maps to the wolves and put your maps in the public domain. Click here to accept our new open data license Then some people click link A, some people click link B and (as before) a bunch of people don't respond. OSM can use all the data anyway - and semi-ugly forks as before. Meanwhile, I want to take the data of everyone who clicks the PD my data button and fork it into our own database. I know there's some weird viral properties which will carry over from some of the data but we'll do the best we can. We can start with all the PD data OSM has incorperated already; as well as the nodes PD-contributors have created. Then we slowly fill out a database which is free for everyone to use in any project without worrying about being sued (aie carumba!). Maybe the OSM project / google maps will always have better maps. But damnit - It'll be worth it. -J ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSMHQ (Open Street Map High Quality): Viable Alternative For The National Map Corps
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Nathan Vander Wilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: All that being said, there are many people in OSM who would actually prefer a non-viral license (including me). Hope is more or less lost to get the whole of OSM to adopt a BSD style license, but I hope that we can at least somehow flag data that comes from PD sources and/or has only been touched by people like me who assert that everything they contribute is PD. See this page for details: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain You guys in the US have a good base there with the TIGER data; any US user who makes a modification to anything imported from TIGER and who is *not* on the above list basically makes that data item un-PD forever, so I hope to see many of you on that list. One could then one day create OSM extracts that have all the data untouched by people who want to use the viral license. The last I'd heard on this sort of extraction is that it would be largely infeasible. The wiki has a bit of a thread on this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Dual_licensing_idea , which links to discussion about whose node but there has also been uncertainty raised regarding not just editing nodes themselves but what those nodes are edited in relation. Has this been further discussed, perhaps off-list, and determined to be feasible after all? If not, it seems to me that extraction would be more trouble (legal and technical) than it'd be worth. Why not start a sister project with known pure PD sources and just edit from there? It might be a few years behind, but in the grand scheme it could be healthy to have a bit of competition in the open mapping arena. (And of course OSM would be free to integrate the public domain project's work into their reciprocally licensed database as well, so they could always be winning.) Absolutely. -J thanks, -natevw ___ 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
