Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013
Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to this list, is most welcome. We've started putting together a remit document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub I'm not quite sure whether it's confered by another heading, but I feel that ICA.coop and its members (and members members and so on) should be a priority target in point 6. There we've got a large family of organisations (over 5000 in the UK alone) with a very large membership (12 million in the largest) that believes in self-help, solidarity and openness, but far too many of them are not sharing with OSM yet. Instead, they're still using locked-down maps and many don't realise that they could easily give back to OSM by recording new tracks on GPS phones, bugfixing and so on. This should be pushing on an open door. How about it? Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] tesco store location data
Richard Fairhurst Many non-NMA sources will fall somewhere between the two. I don't know if you have Tesco over there, but based on their general corporate behaviour in the UK, I suspect their method of finding co-ordinates probably involves killing the firstborn and sacrificing a goat... not sure whether that's compatible with ODbL+CT or not? That's a disappointing thing about this thread. Wouldn't we be better to start with more social retailers that are more likely to support the general spirit of OSM? uk.coop already have a map of branches to support their Co-operate phone app and may have enough permissions over the location data to release it in a compatible way, repeatedly. There's also a coopopendata or opencoops push recently. It would be very cool if OSM store data updates could be fed back too... Any interest and/or pointers of what permissions are required, what formats would be best, including how to mark up licensing? (It might be that different members of uk.coop have supplied info under different terms...) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm http://www.jordanhatcher.com/2010/uk-open-government-licence-now-out/ [...] I look forward to any other comments. Anyone see any gotchas? There's what looks like a stupid field of use restriction if your use is actually endorsed by the Provider, due to it missing the CC-style express prior written permission language. I've had some replies from nationalarchives people, discussions continue, ask me next week. It also seems a bit like unnecessary licence proliferation. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work http://www.software.coop/products/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems
Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: With the GPL, the right to request the source is attached to receiving and using the binary. Withe the AGPL it is attached to being a user of the service. You can't just wander by and say hey! please can I have the source?, you have to be a user of the binary. (In practice people just pop the source on an FTP server, but that's less onerous than having to make minute-by-minute snapshots of OSM available.) That touches on two of the Big Unexploded Lawyerbombs of the AGPL:- 1. are you still a user of the service if the service only says Access Denied to you? 2. if you pop the source on an FTP server, does that mean the service must stop if that FTP server is down? I don't know if either of those are concerns for the OSM licence. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: MJ Ray wrote: As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison. Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to call it OSM any more? Has anyone been contacted by OSMF's lawyers regarding trademark use? Doesn't being a criminal act mean that the state can investigate (and prosecute) without waiting for OSMF's lawyers to act? [...] But guidelines on trademark use would be good. In particular, the OSM trademark should serve the traditional purpose for trademarks of protecting consumers from inferior knock-offs. e.g - http://www.debian.org/trademark Yes and I feel the OpenJDK Trademark Notice would be a more complete example. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trademark applications
SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 20 Jan 2009, at 11:08, MJ Ray wrote: Appealing for patience is all well and good, but it sounds like if Peter hadn't acted when OSMF and the trademark agent had not acted in time, it might have become criminal to call some things openstreetmap tomorrow! If you think I'm a total idiot, then yes, I would have tried to make it criminal to use an un-granted trade mark which didn't pass the uniqueness test to kill the project I started. Presumably my puppet board would have gone along with it, because I control them. Mwa Mwa Mwahahhahaa. I think you're trying to secure the trademark for the whole community to use, but either: you didn't realise the tight time limits on registration and that some trademark infringements are now a criminal offence; or that things are simply taking longer than anyone expected; or any one of a number of other possibilities. If so, then thank you, but could you please public-license the trademark ASAP? Even a temporary license to interested parties until the OSMF transfer+licensing would probably avoid criminal offences. If that's wrong, then please excuse my interruption, but I really don't see how an unforseen consequence means anyone is an idiot. Stuff happens. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trademark applications
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: [...] I.e. he was saying that nobody was needed to make it criminal - that the simple grant of a trademark would be sufficient to do that. I can't believe he's right but I think that's what he said. [...] If I hadn't been seeing this steadily deteriorate, I probably wouldn't believe it either. Here's TRIPS Article 61: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm4_e.htm#5 Members shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. Remedies available shall include imprisonment and/or monetary fines [...] and here's the EU's IPR Enforcement Directive requiring implementation: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=230622 criminal sanctions also constitute, in appropriate cases, a means of ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the UK's Trade Marks Act 1994 as revised 1996 gold-plates it. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislationtitle=trade+marks+actYear=1994searchEnacted=0extentMatchOnly=0confersPower=0blanketAmendment=0sortAlpha=0TYPE=QSPageNumber=1NavFrom=0parentActiveTextDocId=1868072ActiveTextDocId=1868194filesize=6604 Please tell me if I'm wrong about wilful trademark infringement. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.html I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and that no response has been given by a qualified lawyer. With regard to the brief for this licence and the acceptance procedure for the completed licence I recommend that we: [...] Bully for you. What's in it for other participants? More abuse that they can't give conclusive answers and aren't not qualified lawyers? Sorry if I'm coming into this cold from the outside, but I really don't see why any readers would help this apparently-tangential licence project. The email linked above was also rather indirect can I suggest ... (Sgt Wilson?) rather than saying what you seem to want. I'm surprised it got two answers, but I guess this list is nicer than what I've seen before. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: MJ Ray [...] Not *the* licence project. *That* licence project, making use cases and testing things against them. I don't see how that connects to the OSMF licence development work except at one point = it is a tangent. I don't follow your argument. Use Cases and Validating against Use Cases seems an entirely appropriate method to ensuring that we end up with something fit for purpose. It is a technique that will be familiar to most software developers which is a bonus. Sure. They're interesting tests once we see the licence, but I don't understand how continuing the previous thread much further would inform the OSMF licence development work more, so getting upset at the lack of continuation seems a bit odd. [...] I am keen that the final licence agreement is checked by independent competent lawyers drawn from our target commercial user community. Otherwise we won't have tested to licence effectively. Well, if you can make that happen, great, but I wonder whether the target commercial user community's lawyers are likely to tell this list if they spot a vulnerability. The benefits of doing so have not been made clear, really. (By the way, I'd find it easier to reply if you continued the previous thread instead of sending new mail and didn't include lines containing only one space. They're just small things, really, though.) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Software under GPLv2 / v3
Martijn van Exel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It states that 'This software platform will be built in open source under GPLv3 license'. It is pointed out that that may be too restrictive, as projects being included in the funding might already be under development under GPLv2. What do you think? What is the motive for the GPLv3 specification? Also, why GPLv3 and not GPLv3 or later? Without knowing that, it's hard to comment. Unless it is building on other GPL work, it may be better for the intial development to be under more liberal terms than GPLv2, even, as it can always be remixed up to GPL by later work. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, exactly, does CC recommend CC0 even after they have thoroughly looked at our situation, and on what basis does the OSMF board reject the CC suggestion? Please cross-post any such explanation/links to legal-talk. I wish you luck on this, but after bad experiences trying to get any definitive information on why CC holds particular opinions during the Debian-CC working group, I don't hold out much hope of transparency from CC. It seems to be a self-perpetuating black box, common of so many US-originated foundations, with all the problems that involved. OSMF seems better than that, so I'm biased towards OSMF in any disagreement and I feel that most readers here should be too. If you're backing CC, do you know why? CC's licences are pretty good, but not as brilliant as the hype IMO. Maybe their advice will or won't work for the OSM. Keep an open mind. Related: shall we ask debian-legal about the osm-legal-talk thread? It would be good to have OSM data in debian and similar without problem. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This is Parallel Distribution. We (the cc-licences mailing list) discussed it during the CC 3.0 public review. My personal opinion is that it is not a good idea because there is so much room for mischief in it. If you think it's a bad idea for another reason, then fine, but room for mischief applies to almost all licences. Ultimately, whether work is Free and Open with a capital F O is how it's actually handled in practice. After all, with the FDL, there was enough room for mischief that a GNU project declared its whole manual to be an invariant section and a magazine that said its table of contents was an invariant section. Those uses were clearly not what FDL's authors intended, but there will always be someone who misinterprets or deliberately misuses a licence and then the default licensing position is no licence. As long as Parallel Distribution as specified will stand up as a requirement if challenged, that's not a problem in itself IMO - it seems a good way to make DRM copies more expensive and more cumbersome and so discourage it. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
