[OSM-legal-talk] post-migration terms for maps rendered by OSM?
This may be a stupid or uninteresting question. Or the answer may be obvious and I've completely missed it. Apologies in any of those cases. Currently I understand that all data and content on OSM is available under CC BY-SA. That is suboptimal for databases, which of course is why ODbL is desired (or some instrument appropriate for databases, I'll completely ignore the PD vs copyleft debate here, hoping it isn't relevant to my question). At least one important re-user uses maps rendered by OSM under CC BY-SA -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:OpenStreetMap_maps Under what terms will maps rendered by OSM be available after the database is migrated to ODbL? I can imagine some possibilities such as (a) Rendered maps will be under the permissive Database Contents License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/ -- replacement for the Factual Information License mentioned at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#What_alternative_licence_is_the_OSMF_recommending.3F (b) Rendered maps will be under the ODbL itself. I guess that could be read into http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#How_does_this_affect_Wikipedia_and_other_projects_that_want_to_use_our_maps.3F (c) Rendered maps will be under some other terms distinct from the database or database contents (CC BY-SA, public domain ...) I'm not sure rendered maps are really "database contents" and they don't seem to be databases themselves, though I guess one could make a stretch for either. And (c), while not a stretch (maybe, modulo related question below) isn't mentioned in the FAQ. so I'm assuming it isn't on the table. Which is it, or something else I'm completely missing? Related question: Presumably the above question only applies to maps rendered by OSM. One could presumably take the database under ODbL, render their own map, and release under any terms compatible with satisfying the notice/attribution requirement of ODbL for produced work -- 4.3 in http://www.co-ment.net/text/1280/ -- which presumably includes any of the main CC licenses, as well as many other possible release terms. Is this correct? Very marginally-related and even more probably stupid question: What terms will non-map/data/database OSM contents (ie the wiki and maybe other things I don't know about) be under post-migration? Same as current, ie no migration, ie CC BY-SA, or migration to something else? Why do I ask? Mostly because I couldn't find the answer (I have read recent threads about produced works and didn't find it therein). :-) And I'm hoping that maps rendered by OSM (by far the most convenient source of maps rendered with OSM data) may be combined with CC BY-SA works so that another incompatible set of copylefted content isn't created, given that the biggest incompatibility in the copylefted content universe is about to be eliminated (Wikimedia sites adding CC BY-SA of course). I can imagine that this could be the case under any of (a), (b), or (c) above, but I'd like to know for certain. I do work for Creative Commons, but note that I'm not a lawyer, am not stating a position for CC, and only talking about rendered maps, not data or databases! Thanks, Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Anthony wrote: > >>> > >>> If Creative Commons had been more friendly towards the data licensing > >>> issue, > >>> a similar window could have been opened in a hypothetical CC-BY-SA 3.1 > >> > >> If Creative Commons wanted to support the export of sui generis > >> database protection, there wouldn't have been a need for ODbL in the > >> first place. > > > > It was Creative Commons who started the process of looking for a license > > that led to ODbL. It's just that Creative Commons left that process along > > the way. > > They left what process? The goal of the process was not to find a > license like the ODbL. The goal of the process was to address the sui > generis database right within the CC framework. CC chose to address > the right by including it in the definition of work and > unconditionally waiving it. They did this because including the right > otherwise might have the effect of exporting sui generis database > protection to countries without it. It's a little more complicated than that. CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported, the one that most people use, is silent on sui generis restrictions. I don't believe they were seriously discussed (this would have been ~late 2006), but I haven't reviewed 3.0 discussions in a long time. There was a policy decision (summer 2007) to waive license requirements for sui generis restrictions in EU ports of 3.0, effectively conditional on compliance with the license requirements, unless there's a work in which only sui generis, not copyright, applies. I realize this is confusing, as well as the possibility that I'm confused. I work for CC at present, but am not a lawyer, just wanted to mention it is fairly nuanced, and note that CC is watching this and other data[base] discussions. In the fullness of time we'll begin planning for 4.0, and I believe it will be incumbent on CC to review how all of the difficult issues are addressed, not limited to sui generis, moral right^w^wimmoral restrictions ;-), scope of derivatives and noncommercial (obviously irrelevant here), porting, etc, etc. The folks at ODC took the exact > opposite position, and created a license for the explicit purpose of > trying to export the sui generis database right to countries which did > not have it. > > On this issue I actually think CC-BY-SA made the wrong decision, and > that they should have allowed the sui generis database right to be > exported (in the updated version of CC-BY-SA). I'd hope for something between exporting bad policy and not dealing effectively with it (what are public copyright licenses but an attempt to deal effectively with bad policy!?), but I'm sure it is difficult. > This would have made > the ODbL unnecessary, at least for OSM's purposes, and would have not > opened the door to all the *other* changes that came along with the > addition of the sui generis database right (i.e. the ability to make > proprietary maps from OSM data, the requirement to offer the > Derivative Database or an alteration file along with Produced Works, > the DbCL, the contributor terms, incompatibility with Nearmap, data > loss, etc.) > > But regardless of whether they were right or wrong, I can't imagine > them supporting the sui generis database right on one hand (by > facilitating OSM's switch to a license which relies on it), and > refusing to support it on the other (by only recognizing the right in > their licenses long enough to waive it). > A bigger problem, in my mind, would be facilitating a fracturing of the copyleft universe. I realize that there's an argument that data and content are separate magisteria, but I'm pretty skeptical. Non-offi(cc)iously, Mike -- https://creativecommons.net/ml ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > >> >>> They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the >>> rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work. >>> >> >> When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the >> database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume >> > > It disclaims the DB right in all the 3.0 versions iirc. > No, only in EU jurisdiction ports, and there the disclaiming is conditional. See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html Mike -- https://creativecommons.net/ml ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Andrew wrote: > > I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open > Data > > Commons. > > I wouldn't know. On the other hand, Mike Linksvayer, from Creative > Commons, joined the License Working Group conference call on 18 Jan > 2011. The discussion was cordial. I found it interesting to hear the > CC perspective on things. > Likewise. So I wouldn't say that a turf war is brewing between CC and OSM. > Not remotely. We're first interested in a maximally valuable commons, and OSM is an exemplar of what is possible, so we're big fans -- as we were of Wikipedia prior to their license migration to CC-BY-SA -- and would still be had they not migrated. And the OSM people we've met have been great. OKFN (which I believe sees ODC as one of its projects) and associated individuals (Rufus, Jonathan, Jordan, et al) are doing great work, I enjoy them personally, and I hope we have more turf cooperation going forward, if turf must be involved. Mike -- https://creativecommons.net/ml ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Creative Commons global summit, September 16-18 Warsaw, BY-SA 4.0
Registration is now open for the CC http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Global_Summit_2011 September 16-18 in Warsaw. Versioning the CC license suite will be a (the) major topic of the summit, which will launch a long process of developing version 4.0. How the future license addresses databases will of course be a major topic of discussion. Any OSM folk are extremely welcome to attend. Regardless of whether the license is ever useful to OSM in the fullness of time, being maximally useful for similarly massively collaborative database projects is certainly an objective, and this community's experience in that domain is unparalleled. Summit attendee or not, if you're interested in BY-SA 4.0 (and the rest of the CC license suite), I encourage you to subscribe to the low volume, moderated http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses where further announcements and discussion will occur. Thanks, Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL 3a. I would like to use >> OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you? > > I recommend "Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA", as > that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright notice. BY-SA doesn't require a copyright notice. It requires keeping intact copyright notices that are provided, as well as license notice. Given that copyright is automatic, many licensors don't provide the former, though it may be useful to do so anyway for education. The notices provided by CC don't include an explicit copyright notice. > Spelling out "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike v3.0" and adding > years to each notice wouldn't hurt either. It seems to me space is at a premium in the corner of a map or a caption, and spelling out doesn't gain much, but that's just my opinion. Just as an experiment in brevity ©OpenStreetMap data ODbL[ tiles BY-SA] With "OpenStreetMap", "ODbL", and "BY-SA" linked to the obvious places, [] when tiles used. > I also recommend using the *word* "copyright" rather than (c), as it is > my understanding that the English word has international legal weight > but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't. That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really? > For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url): > > https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_commercial=y&field_derivatives=sa&field_jurisdiction=&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_GB&n_questions=3 Nobody has ever sent a request for a copy of a license via post, AFAIK. :) But the full license URL should be provided, not "www.creativecommons.org". Same is true of ODbL which says "If hyperlinks are not possible, You should include the plain text of the required URI’s with the above notice." IANALetc Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Possible Wikimania panel: Mass collaboration data projects and policies
A friend and ~colleague (copied; Tyng-Ruey has been a leader of Creative Commons Taiwan from its beginning) has proposed a panel for Wikimania (July 12-15 in Washington, DC): https://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Mass_collaboration_data_projects_and_policies While most of Wikimania is focused on Wikimedia projects, there are always a number of sessions of more general wiki/mass collaboration interest; this would be one of those. If anyone "from" OSM (I'd guess from the licensing working group or otherwise deeply informed) is planning to attend Wikimania, we would love to have you join -- obviously OSM deals very concretely in the issues that have been posed fairly abstractly in the proposal. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland wrote: > > Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official > > confirmation of the exact license adopted. > > I disagree. > > Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a > no-restrictions, equivalent-to-Public-Domain-license, like ODC-PDDL, > will require a waiver or clarification from the municipality (or > province / territory, or feds) that attribution as provided by > OpenStreetMap (wiki page, probably listed on a sub-page) meets their > interpretation of "attribution". So, adoption of CC-anything-but-0 is > bad for local OSM communities. It would likely work out okay in the > end for those local OpenStreetMap communities. To my knowledge, every > municipality approached for such a waiver has granted it. To > OpenStreetMap Foundation at least. > > For the Open Data community at large, and for the municipality / > governement itself, adoption of any restricting license is a disaster. > For one thing, not every potential open project will be on the radar > of a municipality in the same way that OpenStreetMap is. Too bad for > that potential Open Data Project. Perhaps they'll get the waiver they > need, perhaps they won't. > > Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed > ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. > I agree that all PSI ought be public domain, with ODC-PDDL or CC0 or some other public domain instrument, since the sane default isn't the default. But calling attribution-only terms a closed-data-failure (BTW, what does that make ODbL? Is OSM the only entity in the world that can use non public domain terms and not be a closed data fail?) seems over the top. Asking for a clarification that provided attribution is OK seems over the top too, at least for CC-BY, especially CC-BY-4.0, given "You may satisfy the [attribution conditions] in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material." If every attribution needs to be clarified with the licensor to determine if it is OK, then attribution licenses truly are a fail. But that practice is certainly not the intent of such licenses. IMO, IANAL, etc etc. The remainder below is most excellent. > Another sign of bizarre, Open-blindness. I've had government open > data representatives say to me, the equivalent of, "So what if the > license says something complicated. It's open, just do what you want. > We won't go after anybody who breaks the license. We just need to be > able to shut down anybody who embarrasses us." > > Ahem. No. > > 0) If you plan to grant wavers and exemptions anyway, why not just use > an unrestricted license? Oh, did you want to only grant exemptions > for projects / persons of whom you approve? That doesn't sound very > open. > 1) If you don't plan to enforce your license terms, why select (or > worse, why draft) a license with restrictions? Select ODC-PDDL > instead. > 2) If you want developers to work with your data, do you want > developers who care enough to read, understand and follow your terms, > or not? Because your license with restrictions just cut out a portion > of those developers. You can still keep the developers that don't > read licenses, or don't care about the terms. Congratulations. > 3) What, you want to shut down a use of the data that embarrasses you? > No. It doesn't work that way. If Open Data can be shown to expose > that your mayor is a pathologically lying, bullying, drug addict with > possible links to organized crime, you don't get to shut down the > analysis just because your boss finds it embarrassing. (It's just a > hypothetical example) > 4) If you really do plan to grant a waiver or exemption to every > project / user who asks for it, shouldn't you have selected an > unrestricted Open Data License that didn't place the burden of that > extra waiver step upon you (and each potential user) ? > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0
CC has a process https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria It has been followed for two licenses so far https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_FAL https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3 Mike On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Tom Lee wrote: > Another update: I still haven't heard anything from the academic affiliated > with CC with whom I had met, so I have to assume she's no longer interested > in this project. That's a shame, but I know that OKFN is amenable to > examining the question of compatibility more closely. I'll continue to look > for ways to make this happen in 2016. > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Andrew Harvey > wrote: >> >> Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that. >> >> On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole" wrote: >>> >>> Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey: >>> > I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC >>> > BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in >>> > Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways >>> There might be a misunderstanding there, CC by is not going to be an >>> option as long as we have a licence with a share-alike component. The >>> only thing that we are discussing for now is attribution only input >>> licences. >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> > if it were compatible with the ODbL. >>> > >>> > On 15 July 2015 at 00:22, Tom Lee wrote: >>> >> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've >>> >> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either >>> >> with >>> >> formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the next >>> >> license >>> >> revision). That's on hold pending their availability at summer's end; >>> >> stay >>> >> tuned. >>> >> >>> >>> To clarify a bit, any CC licenses that are ND or NC are non-open and >>> >>> clearly incompatible with the ODbL or any open license. CC BY SA 4.0 >>> >>> is >>> >>> currently incompatible, but Creative Commons could change that. >>> >>> >>> >>> CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly incompatible, thanks to the >>> >>> attribution requirements that can't be met. >>> >>> >>> >>> CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility. >>> >> >>> >> ___ >>> >> legal-talk mailing list >>> >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >>> >> >>> > ___ >>> > legal-talk mailing list >>> > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> legal-talk mailing list >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >>> >> >> ___ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0
Indeed, CC-BY-SA-4.0 data at best would be as useful as ODbL data to OSM under its current arrangements, ie not at all without agreement to contributor terms. Perhaps continued copyleft fragmentation is even in the (near term anyway) interest of OSM in order to encourage all others to use maximally permissive licenses. I admit to somewhat reflexively adding info about compatibility when I saw Tom Lee's message about exploring it without thinking about whether it is a useful discussion to have here. Apologies! Mike On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > > Mike, my understanding of the process in question determines if > adaptations of CC by-SA material can be licensed on terms of the > compatible license. > > While it would certainly be possible to carry out such a process for the > ODbL (that is if the licence related activities of the OKF were not a > prime candidate for the well known Frank Zappa quote "Jazz isn't dead. > It just smells funny"), from an OSM contributor pov it doesn't make > sense to tie our hands by using restrictively licensed material that > would just have to be removed in the case of any change to our current > distribution licence. > > Attribution only licences and explicit permissions given with > attribution requirement are far less problematic, given on the one hand > that we other attribution in the contributor terms and on the other > hand, just for practical reasons, we will likely always have a licence > with an attribution requirement. > > Simon > > Am 24.12.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Mike Linksvayer: >> CC has a process >> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria >> >> It has been followed for two licenses so far >> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_FAL >> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3 >> >> Mike >> >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Tom Lee wrote: >>> Another update: I still haven't heard anything from the academic affiliated >>> with CC with whom I had met, so I have to assume she's no longer interested >>> in this project. That's a shame, but I know that OKFN is amenable to >>> examining the question of compatibility more closely. I'll continue to look >>> for ways to make this happen in 2016. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Andrew Harvey >>> wrote: >>>> Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that. >>>> >>>> On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole" wrote: >>>>> Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey: >>>>>> I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC >>>>>> BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in >>>>>> Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways >>>>> There might be a misunderstanding there, CC by is not going to be an >>>>> option as long as we have a licence with a share-alike component. The >>>>> only thing that we are discussing for now is attribution only input >>>>> licences. >>>>> >>>>> Simon >>>>> >>>>>> if it were compatible with the ODbL. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15 July 2015 at 00:22, Tom Lee wrote: >>>>>>> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've >>>>>>> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the next >>>>>>> license >>>>>>> revision). That's on hold pending their availability at summer's end; >>>>>>> stay >>>>>>> tuned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To clarify a bit, any CC licenses that are ND or NC are non-open and >>>>>>>> clearly incompatible with the ODbL or any open license. CC BY SA 4.0 >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> currently incompatible, but Creative Commons could change that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly incompatible, thanks to the >>>>>>>> attribution requirements that can't be met. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility. >>>>>>> ___ >
