Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful source data. (ODbL does.) I honestly doubt that ODbL will achieve this. For example, if someone decides to use some convoluted tagging system without publishing a specification, his data will mean very little to the community. I will go even further and say this is already happening by people who have already agreed to the ODbL. (Should I point out the examples that I know of ?) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: And as for the OSMF, I cite www.osmfoundation.org with The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share. That statement tell us how they would like it to work. In reality, they control the project: 1. The license 2. The lists, e.g. moderation on talk-au 3. The domains 4. SoTM and 5. The servers And I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as the community is properly represented on the board. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: On 12.08.2011 11:46, Florian Lohoff wrote: Up to now the pre-CT mappers have not even asked if a license change should happen at all, and WHICH license be switched to. May I remind you a litte bit on the history of the licence change... (all as far as I know) While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? The licence working group was founded 2008, everybody was invited to join. I didn't receive an invitation. If the OSMF wanted to hear all the different opinions on the license, they would not have formed the LWG, because legal-talk is a reasonable aggregation point for that. Actually we were asked to move some discussion from legal-talk to legal-general. So it's pretty clear that the issue was not going to be resolved through 'talk'ing or meetings. Next you are going to point me to the Pieren poll. The first problem there is that people who want PD cannot be assumed to be supporters. But, more importantly, only people subscribed to certain mailing lists knew of that poll. The question is pretty simple: Ask every active mapper (including those who have not accepted the CTs) if they think the benefits of the new license will outweigh the costs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: PD data does not need a complicated and binding CT as the current one. True. But PD is forward compatible with the CTs. For example, we did not need to ask the upstream authors of TIGER to accept the CTs. PD is not backward compatible with the CTs. But that's a complicated subject that was discussed many times and I'd rather avoid it. And the current situation is not possible to contribute PD data at all. So the situation would have been much improved if there were a sign up as PD user with a very simple PD-CT. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:15 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Hi, On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote: You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and diligence with which mappers all over the place are working towards getting ready for the big switch. Most had held back initially to give people a chance to reconsider, but now things are really moving, and with a very positive attitude at that - it's not grumble grumble grumble why do we have to do this but we're doing our part to put OSM on a solid legal footing, cleaning up behind those whom we couldn't persuade. For this, it is obviously very important *not* to allow any further CC-BY-SA contributions as those would give people a sense of fighting against windmills. Everyone is working to bring the amount of non-relicensable contributions down to zero; adding more non-relicensable contributions would not only pull the rope in the other direction, it would also ruin the spirits of everyone working to fix things. 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] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided +1 But when you contribute under an open license, you must make peace that some downstream users will use it in some unintended ways. For example the spirit of the GPL2 being circumvented by bootloaders checking digital signatures, or online service providers not sharing the improvements they made to the Linux kernel. to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT. In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did the work. So why should i grant special rights to the OSMF via the CT? A good point about the CC-BY-SA, CC0, PD, GPL or BSD is that everybody gets the same rights. Not so with the current relicensing. With stating that my contributions are PD/CC0 i grant everybody the same rights. The OSMF has stated that they going to delete my contributions as i refused to grant special rights to the OSMF. Does this only sound suspicious for me? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBTkLVEpDdQSDLCfIvAQivpA/7BIv6SrfMU1yO3lse+QTNFiwYDdfjVjsu FNWkuaf6PjUynpfAdwZVpMFRY5oR9o5fuuvGGu++2mdyzAHGgdIlLQ19zvSKWMYL jeouXSQqSmu4wETNw4GsbBuHQruZ7VsUSqvBbyT0RMaActbaJ864feNQRvzywHT0 4DX8/ozw2ypLwWEuf/TMKOHTf0Zlsab+jm9MZxGD/S7TBw+uJ78z9PIEWinw2/ov yoPnvflJA2rL4LE7UujfxilHOtbkaq3Ec9atOZ411J2tZB5e2Ozjx6MC8H2TDwEI qinU5FzgigCNwic5sGVGdtXYMll5zJx/Tr5Tix02JkCbMTsAJGa2+Ar+/E9kM9QB 7bbyewkOtWND8KI1z7QecVaSKP0q5x4zo5tjXfbZtXpBwY4K116rBcoa4oVCCIwc kxSEsM0ZMmFD878gh/LffoM/25IQTofvxXWIQM2w9xN1ChD8Ay2zZd+KXaDIXLBW s6dEM0jvYUuG6gMtCjpoRfzXWoke6k2Mf+M5eqobVf4CC4/4SvhJ+MhHzyAxIVsF ZyckKJhIjN4w7RTscb0DvwJ10qpA0vzcYo2/75tWHHYuUfplssB5yllpXxSdR9mj r2+JmkCUti4V+ZhJ3LsCAVmolBVXsuGl1ZnRPax9kHDlAiNujZrP3iv+5WAUHZRP LjFobQmFn7Q= =cc7h -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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: OSM is still CC-BY-SA and it seems that that won’t change soon. ** Gert, if you are so sure of that, open a new account and use that instead. At the very least you will still be contributing to osm and any forks that may occur. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:03:16PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: Gert, if you are so sure of that, open a new account and use that instead. At the very least you will still be contributing to osm and any forks that may occur. He said he would not accept the CT so he is now officially excluded from contributing to OSM - As am i ... OSM or better the OSMF decided to exspell all former contributers from further contributing. The precise statement of that will be interesting. What if you personally accept the CTs but imported CC-BY-SA material in your old account ? As a lot of contributers fear the loss of data my guess is that the OSMF will delay the deletion of data and final switch to ODBL ad infinitum, until all data has been white washed through later modifications. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the Database Directive but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on copyright and not a contract. please reread the gpl, read moglen; http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and the managers. As giving rights to OSMF: It is just a pooling mechanism. Instead of 10,000 contributors each having their own opinion about the next license, we then only have a few ideas and the decision is made by voting. Then a few contributors can't block something good because they're having a bad day. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a continuity fork so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. A fork will be a very bad thing. Even if the users are split 80-20, there will be a lot of duplication. Some people will dual license and then there will be imports from the other branch of the fork. Computing resource requirements will nearly double. Outsiders will think that the community is not getting along. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license for business: meh
I can't speak for Chris, but you don't make me nervous because you're quite open and you don't drive any issues that may have business implications. On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, I'm sort of sick of allegations that what I say and do in the community is somehow tainted by myself doing business in OSM. Here's a quote from talk a while ago: Chris Browet wrote: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me nervous and doubtful. I assure you it does not have to make you nervous. Just because someone earns money doesn't automatically make him an asshole with no morals. Basically, everyone who writes what you wrote above somehow seems to want to say: We must always consider that he might be lying to us because he wants to make more money. This makes me sad; I spend a lot of time with OSM stuff, and I could certainly be making a lot more money if I'd take a job in some IT consultancy. But I chose to work in OSM because that way I get to do what I like. Hear? WHAT I LIKE. I have found a way to earn a living from doing what I like, and helping to move the project forward while I'm doing that. Until now, I have had exactly one prospective client who, after I had explained the CC-BY-SA to him, want away with a no thank you, and I have had exactly one prospective client for whom the CC-BY-SA would have been fine but his project wouldn't work with the ODbL (forcing him to release a database he would not have wanted to release), so he went away too. So the ODbL isn't really better or worse for business - it depends, or at least that's my view. In a way, of course, I have a business interest in OSM growing and becoming better, but can you hold that against me? You could also say that I have a business interest in the license matter being resolved one way or the other becaus that saves me from having to explain *two* licenses to every prospective customer which is a bit painful sometimes. And as for me being a key player - I am writing a lot on the lists, I am mapping a bit, I have written some software, and I am on the data working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Are we strict enough with imports ?
* What ?? Strict and OSM in the same sentence ?? * Recently on one of the talk lists, one user accused another of importing TeleAtlas data bases on how closely the datasets fits each other. A third user (Richard Weait?) speculated that their may have been a common (e.g. government) source. Fortunately this was picked up quite soon and if there was an infringement it was dealt with quite swiftly. But there are many imports and the work of checking the legalities is really quite boring. My experience is that some of the users who imported data used their discretion when it came to tagging and documentation. So that discretion may have extended to the interpretation of the legalities. The longer an illegal import sits in the database, the more damage it does: It takes more work to remove it, it may damage our credibility and it may have removed the incentive for users to collect the relevant data using a legal method, not to mention possible legal fees or damages. My suggestion is that we should have a fixed, but simple procedure for users who import data: (a) Setting the source tag to a unique value. (b) A wiki page with the legal information, at a standardized location, perhaps Tag:source=XX. If it was a verbal agreement, then just names of the persons present. If it was from a webpage, copy and paste the applicable license or terms and conditions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How does Google map maker handle copyright
I tried out GMM by adding a road and a hotel in Tanzania that I visited. There were a few clouds on the Landsat image, so the moderator rejected the hotel. Perhaps they aren't interested in local knowledge ! But more seriously : Perhaps they just feel that it's up to the individual to make sure he/she is in compliance with relevant intellectual property law. After all, they only remove copyrighted material from the caches of their search engine and from Youtube when there is a complaint. Unlike google, we distribute our maps in many permanent forms, like planet dumps and hardcopy. So it would be quite difficult to remove all copies. And I would be disappointed if I missed an opportunity to survey a location because someone contributed copyrighted material that was later removed. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote: The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole. If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to accept the license contract before letting them look at the map. That loophole can be closed by requiring that Produced work is only something that is primarily not a map. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trademark (was: Copyright of OSM-Logo)
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: others. I cannot, for example, get away with registering a coca-cola-sucks.org domain or at least I'd be in for some trouble. I don't know about coca-cola-sucks.org but coca-cola-sucks.co.za should not be too difficult. See http://hellcom.co.za/ -- According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Data, the share-alike clause means we are not open. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Circumnavigating Share-Alike through software / now and future
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BY-SA 2.0 section 3.d allows you to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission Derivative Works http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode So a derivative work that does not allow this cannot be made, no matter who makes it or where. Unless local law explicitly allows you to create derivative works for your own use. IANAL, TINLA ___ 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
I wasn't quite sure what exactly was wrong with Rob's comments but you summed it up nicely. On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The promise that someone will hold you in higher esteem if you abandon your principles rarely works out. I don't think this issue is anything to do with esteem, but what principle here are you asserting we would be abandoning? The principle ... I disagree, community projects (like everyone else) *should* practice random acts of kindness. And I believe the OSM community would be ___ 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 Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: My company (Ito World Ltd) needs to be able to combine Share-Alike data from OSM with copyright data from other sources ... IMHO Other sources are usually incompatible with SA. software and produce rendered images or conclusions that we can sell (and not have to give away for free). Without an expectation that the new licence will allow this then ITO would not be participating in the project. For the PD, CC-SA and presumably the new license all allow this. avoidance of doubt I fully expect commercial users of the data to be required to make their improvements to the OSM dataset itself back to the community and we are trying to get a set of words together to ensure that these distinctions are as clear as they can be in the licence (although there will of course be grey areas on the boundaries, which is why the Use Cases are so important). Mathematicians warn us against Use Cases. With PD, no Use Cases are needed and legal fees are less. I remind councils and other people interested in the project that there is no reason why they can't pay people to work on OSM. There is some funny idea that because it is an open-source project and that the results are free that people have to do it in their spare time. This is clearly not the case with Much more true than funny. What's also true is that they don't update OSM because they don't see any benefit. This will offcourse change if OSM becomes either * the dominant online map (like wikipedia being the dominant online encyclopedia) OR * an upstream source for other maps, which isn't very likely under SA. ___ 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 4:41 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we get a vague show of hands about what people think of this? I +1 for the wikipedia version. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what we want is suitable as some kind of ethics/morality stick we can use to beat people who misbehave, even if they misbehave within the envelope of the law. I hope this thread has something to do with punishing people who commit vandalism... On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Jochen Topf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I what. So all the downloads we have now (planet file, shapes, garmin maps, ...) need click-throughs (and possible user-tracking) in the future? Damn. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC Attribution Share Alike License with OSMF exception
The paranoid people are all on this list. Perhaps 100 ? Which leave a good 49900 who don't really care what the license is. Otherwise we would have seen a fork long ago. A few of the normal checks should suffice : 1. The directors should act in the best interest of the community and disclose any prior affiliations and conflict of interests. Failure to disclose may result in licensing deals being declared invalid. 2. Only natural persons may vote. Then an evil company will have to out number the crowd. On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BUT to get the more paranoid people among us to accept such a body with these rights, you will have to set up a huge and complicated process with checks and balances and positions of power and well-defined decision making processes and all - a real ugly beast if you ask me. People will ask how do you ensure that OSMF doesn't fall into evil hands, and you will start to invent boards of directors and boards of overseers and whatnot, and all these will have to be chosen by some kind of vote; then you'll have to define who may vote. But then what happens if the evil guys just register all their users as members and simply jump over whatever the minimum criterion is we put up? So you'll have to put in some clauses that enable you to kick out people or reject their applications or remove their voting rights. Of course, then, there needs to be a provision for people to appeal against such a decision. Etc. etc. etc. In the end, you'll have set up something that is even more complex, unclear, and liable to interpretation than the license itself, a veritable beast that only bureaucratic control freaks can ride. Unhappy with something? Just submit it, in written form, with three copies, to our under-secretary for member queries, and it might just get on the agenda for next year's AGM... I am not a control freak. I think formal decisions, votes, authority and all that should be avoided wherever possible. As long as we can manage with our do-ocracy, let us do that. And I know what I'm speaking of, I'm from Germany ;-) 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] Temporary upload of sat images for evaluation (WMS)
Let's just distinguish between the types of data : 1. The commercial partner can keep ownership of the original raster data (photos). 2. Derived vector data that is uploaded to the OSM servers will be placed under the OSM license. So there are many options A. He sets up his own server and continues to own the vector data. Don't expect help from the community. B. He sets up a WMS with specific rules as to what vector data we may derive from it. For example only roads, but no POIs. This will work quite well, because JOSM supports may WMS sources and he can choose which members of the community he wants to allow. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
I really would like to see a license as simple as the following: For data users - 0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data. 1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy. 2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is strongly encouraged. For map editors - 1. Only add essentially uncopyrighted map data. 2. You are welcome join the list of contributors. I know you mean to move the issue forward, but what you are proposing isn't really a license, more like a guide. (A license can't contain vague statements like is expected and strongly encouraged or insist that you abide by the law e.g. only add) Furthermore, you must realize that attribution can come without being required by the license, e.g. through the media. In fact many wikipedians argue that attribution is more or less guaranteed in the age of search engines. Daniel J. Bernstein recently placed much of his software in the Public Domain, because he argued that even a simple attribution clause (BSD) can become an obstacle. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
