Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use of auckland city council aerial photos fortracing

[Simon Poole]

Simple solution: ask the city council.

Simon

- Original Message - 
From: "Robin Paulson" 

To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:20 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] use of auckland city council aerial photos fortracing


hi,
auckland city council provides very high resolution photos, which some
nz users would like to use for tracing. this is the "license" under
which we can use the data. i'm not sure how to proceed. some advice,
please?

[quote]

You are permitted to use this website and any data, maps, plans,
content and information (“information”) provided by this website, on
the following terms and conditions:

1.  This website and the information provided in it are the copyright
of the Auckland Council.  This website is a public service and may be
used for personal and business purposes. However, you are not
permitted to copy or republish any substantial amount of the
information from this website without the prior written consent of
Auckland Council.
[/quote]


specifically, does tracing count as 're-publishing information'? if
so, would lots people tracing count as 'substantial'?

--
robin

http://tangleball.co.nz/
http://bumblepuppy.org/blog/

___
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] New phrase in section 2

[Simon Poole]

Franics writes:

What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
"compatible" with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
those.


This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. 


The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0
state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The 
LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to

actually do anything about it.

See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 "4. Data Imports"


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

[Simon Poole]

Rob

I'm not assuming anything. 

But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM 
community) don't have an handle on imports in any respect. 

This is mainly due to a rather laisser faire approach in the 
past, and simply that getting correct and formal approval for 
an import is, both for the donor and the importer, a lot of 
work (and more so in the future with a rather complex 
license on the OSM side of things). 


Looking forward, I don't see anyway around a more strict
regime. Clearly that will put more burden on the OSMF and
make imports less attractive, but I can't say that that is a bad 
thing. 


Simon

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Myers" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2



On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote:


The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't
want to actually do anything about it.


Please Assume Good Faith.

Also remember that the LWG meets once a week.

And that they do read this list.

- Rob.

___
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] New phrase in section 2

[Simon Poole]

Grant

There's a lot of data out there that has licenses that at least 
superficially may seem to be compatible with the OSM license.


Using such data sources is very attractive to some mappers, 
for a large number of reasons, not the least that it's simply a lot 
less work than going out and mapping stuff yourself.


Asking a mapper community with a majority of  non-lawyer, 
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are 
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with 
some degree of certainty is just a joke. 

And as I pointed out previously, getting formal authorization 
tends to be so much work, that it doesn't even happen in cases 
where the proper contacts are there.


I know you've been doing work on the "Import Catalogue"
and I hope you realize that it at least for the regions where I 
have some knowledge it is missing a quite lot of stuff, in fact

it more like the tip of an iceberg.

Since there's nothing particularly special about where I live, 
I have to assume it that it's going to be similar elsewhere. 
Luckily most of it is tracing from orthophotos, but I just 
noticed it's missing a recent import of 30'000 public transport 
stops (don't panic, the license is "probably" ok (see above) 
and I'll ask the importers to add it to the list).


Simon


- Original Message - 
From: "Grant Slater" 

To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2



On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole  wrote:


Franics writes:


What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
"compatible" with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
those.


This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested.
The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0
state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The
LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to
actually do anything about it.

See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 "4. Data Imports"



"Importer" in that context sits better than "mapper". The person who
imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has
always been the case.
The import guidelines strongly advise:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
Imports like "BP service stations Australia" are a problem, because
the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the
supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I
am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or
ANY future license.

Your remark of "LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it."
doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been
doing.

Kind regards
Grant
LWG member.

___
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] New phrase in section 2

[Simon Poole]

I should have phrased that differently: "asking the individuals
in the mapper community ...". It's clear that somewhere in
the community as a whole there is the knowhow or the money
to review licenses correctly (I wouldn't have suggested
a register of allowed data sources otherwise).

That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the 
issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has 
pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO 
no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the 
future.


Further I believe you are mistaken wrt to the number of licenses,
particulary if you are looking a local and regional data sources.

Simon


- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Fairhurst" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2




Simon Poole wrote:
Asking a mapper community with a majority of  non-lawyer, 
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are 
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with 
some degree of certainty is just a joke. 


Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a small number of licences.
It isn't beyond the skills of the community (and the professional hired help
that OSMF is able to arrange) to say whether these few licences are
compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of
future mappers.

In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence)
openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL).

Richard


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5813959.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] New phrase in section 2

[Simon Poole]

Since I don't beleive the current approach to handling imports
in the CTs is workable: no I haven't made any effort to make
the CTs 3rd party license compatible. But, yes, I've made
an alternative suggestion.

Essentially it boils down to the mapper importing data on behalf
of the OSMF, sidestepping the whole issue of 3rd party data 
being first licensed to the mapper and then sublicensed to the

OSMF.

Simon

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Fairhurst" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2




Simon Poole wrote:
That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the 
issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has 
pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO 
no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the 
future.


Oh, sure, nothing "magically starts working". It requires willingness and
commitment to make it work, just like everything else in OSM. I'm willing to
put effort into licence compatibility (and have made suggestions to LWG,
which they've taken up, to ensure CT compatibility with attribution-required
licences). Are you?

Richard


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5815086.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?

[Simon Poole]

Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it.

For example in Germany simple "Lichtbilder"  (which would include areial 
photographs) have the same protection as photographic works of art 
("Lichtbildwerke") with the exception of the proctection term. And there is 
at least one German higher court judgement in which tracing a non-artistic 
photograph was considered copyright infringement


Simon

PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right 
now is going on in -Germany-


- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony" 

To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing 
TermsofUse?




On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:

It may be true that tracing aerial images (what you probably wanted to
state) does not create a derived work in -some- jurisdictions, but 
anything

else I wouldn't be so sure of.


If you have nothing to add, why respond?

___
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] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?

[Simon Poole]

"Anthony"  wrote


None of that even shows that German courts use the term "derivative
work", let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the
definition of that term.


It's extremly unlikely that a German court would use English :-).

But in the specific case they did considered the derived work, the German
equivalent of a "derived work". In the absence of specific case law, 
naturally
nobody will make any definite statement (just as I believe the discussion 
here

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photography
doesn't), but you can compare similar cases.

PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing 
right

now is going on in -Germany-



And that matters why, exactly?


Because:


If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see
that it said that the Microsoft license "makes no grants of rights to
publish derived works".


Does MS even have the rights to grant such a license in Germany?

Simon

___
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] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

[Simon Poole]

Thomas Ineichen has been so nice to update the (unofficial) German 
translation to 1.2.4 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms). 
There is a small mater of dispute wrt to the intent of the English 
original in 1 (a):


"your contribution of data should not infringe .."

Is the intent that the "should" is a legal mandatory "shall" or is it a 
legal non-mandatory "should"? It seems that the French translation 
(based on my awful French skills) would support the former.


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

[Simon Poole]

Francis, have a nice holiday.

Simon

PS: I'm actually completly with you on the interpretation, the issue is 
that we have a large body of mappers that are German CS students, that 
just love arguing subtle points, and in formal specifications must, 
shall, should, etc. have very different meanings.


Am 24.03.2011 14:27, schrieb Francis Davey:

On 24 March 2011 13:13, Simon Poole  wrote:

I was referring to the 1.2.4 French translation

http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/c/c2/2011-03-08_OSM_Contributor_Terms_1.2.4_FrenchTranslation.pdf

What you have is the translation of 1.0.

The issue wrt to the wording is if to use a strong "must not infringe" vs. a
weak "should not infringe" (in the German translation).


But contractual obligations aren't "strong" or "weak". Can you explain
what you think that difference means in terms of the obligations
either would impose on a contributor? It may be that German law knows
of a difference between strong and weak obligations. English law
doesn't (yes there's a distinction between terms which do or do not
entitle the other party to repudiate, but we aren't worrying about
that here).

In other words, the proper question is: what obligation does the
English contractor terms place on a contributor, and then translate
that obligation into German. I'm not sure how close the existing
wording is to one of the various ones I suggested, but the intention
is that the first part of 1(a) indicates OSMF's goal, and only the
second part imposes an obligation, but as I explained earlier I am not
sure that is what it does.

Can I suggest that it would be a really really good idea to have the
contributor terms drafted in one go by a professional lawyer, rather
than bit by bit. I've had various requests to look at specific parts
of the wording, but really the contract has to hang together as a
whole. What needs to happen is that (whoever it is who makes these
decisions) decides what they want the terms to do and then have them
drafted to do that. Drafting good legal copy is not something that
should be done like a wiki document.

I realise everyone works very hard over this, but none of the versions
I've seen make me happy in numerous ways. I speak as someone who has
entirely no view as to what they should do, but since I draft exactly
this kind of contract all the time (and sadly litigate others, though
not ones I have drafted), I have quite strong sensibilities about how
they should read.

My "spare time" is pretty limited and my pro bono effort is directed
at various other organisations (My Society, ORG and the One Click
Organisation) but just to get this settled I'd be happy to take formal
instruction from OSMF to sort this out properly without charge.

But I don't want to be a self-publicist. It may be that everyone is
happy with the CT's and feels no help is needed. There are almost
certainly other (large) law firms that would be happy to offer a free
consult so they could associate their name with OSMF's (which is now
getting pretty famous).

Anyway, I'll see what anyone thinks about that when I am back from holiday.




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

[Simon Poole]

I was referring to the 1.2.4 French translation

http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/c/c2/2011-03-08_OSM_Contributor_Terms_1.2.4_FrenchTranslation.pdf

What you have is the translation of 1.0.

The issue wrt to the wording is if to use a strong "must not infringe" 
vs. a weak "should not infringe" (in the German translation).


Simon


Am 24.03.2011 10:40, schrieb Francis Davey:

On 24 March 2011 09:29, Francis Davey  wrote:


In context (which is how all contracts are read) it clearly means that
the purpose of the contract is to ensure that the contribution of data
does not infringe and to that end the contributor gives a warranty as
to their state of knowledge about their right to authorize OSMF to do
certain things. This is the 1.2.4 version.

The French version:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR

Clearly says something quite different as far as I can see, namely
that the contributor agrees _only_ to add content for which they own
the intellectual property.

There's no clause that says which language contributor terms prevails
- presumably whichever a contributor agrees to - so there are a
multiplicity of agreements.

Also puzzling is the distinction in clause 1. The first sentence says:

"Dans le cas où des Contenus comprennent des éléments soumis à un
droit d’auteur, Vous acceptez de n’ajouter que des Contenus dont Vous
possédez la propriété intellectuelle."

But "droit d'auteur" does not (as I understand the term) include
database right. Its un droit des producteurs de bases de données
rather than un droit d'auteur (forgive my atrocious French - its been
nearly 30 years since I studied it). "propriété intellectuelle" is a
much wider term, which includes industrial property.

Maybe there's a good reason for this wording and I'm not either French
or a French lawyer.




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.04.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Avis:

Frederik Ramm  writes:


I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.

Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.



Actually it wouldn't.

The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers, 
representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, 
that specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new 
license. As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 
2.0 would only be effective for a licensee (that received the data under 
2.0) that wants to distribute the data under a higher version.


Since the pre-CT terms can at least be read differently than the current 
OSMF interpretation, it is a least open to dispute if the same wouldn't 
apply for mappers data that haven't relicensed yet



IANAL

Simon

PS: in an hour or so, we will be over 10'000 explicit acceptances of the CTs
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.04.2011 19:10, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poole  writes:


The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be
effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to
distribute the data under a higher version.

Interesting.  So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways
that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF 
under
CC-BY-SA 2.0.  I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision
in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified.


IMHO mappers licensing their data to the OSMF under CC-by-SA is not a 
useful concept, nor was it ever.  And if it is just because the license 
simply can't apply to the majority of contributions.


But I digress. Since in the arrangement between the mappers and the OSMF 
specific versions of the licenses are listed, it is clear that these 
cannot be changed without a vote. BTW a very good thing.


In any case as I pointed out before, the upgrade clauses allow 
recipients of the data to use a higher version of the license when 
-they- distribute the licensed object, they cannot affect the internal 
arrangements between the mappers and the OSMF.



If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is
free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three?
(according to your reading of the proposed CTs)

It's two licenses, not three. The way I read it, parallel dual licensing 
would be possible.


But again IANAL.

Simon

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Simon Poole]

Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs 
stipulate the opposite.


Simon

Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:




FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his
own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So
this should be less problematic than the FSF situation.


That is like writing a song, and grant the rights to do with it what
he wants to the publisher. You seen where that leads to in the music
business.
Same for OSM. The CT-phrase in particular must be copied from them.



Gert

___
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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Simon Poole]

Am 17.04.2011 11:59, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:

Granting rights to a central body (but not
your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
communities.

Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related
to the legal system in this world.  Many people just don't want to
be involved in that.  We click everyday on each piece of software,
upgrade or whatever website, to such an extent that we cannot read
those CT's anymore, let alone obey in any sense.
If I need something for business, or for surviving; I may click.

If it's someone that wants something for me, I won't click.
What bloody arrogance has an organization that gets stuff for free (OSM)
to make me oblige to sign *any* contract.



You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF?

Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might be 
implicit. You are simply replacing that fuzzy contract with a,  not 
perfect, but at least with most terms spelt out, new agreement.


Simon






___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Simon Poole]

It is exactly the issue that I can't give you a copy of the prior terms 
(and the argument applies equally well to whatever the agreement could 
be construed to be for the mappers that started prior the founding of 
the OSMF).


Simon

Am 17.04.2011 14:12, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:

You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF?

Will you sent me a copy ?
OSMF did not even exist when I signed up, so I doubt if there is
another agreement then a single sided.
And I still doubt that OSMF is representing the community
in a way there statutes say.

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 12:12
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the
CT)






Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might be
implicit. You are simply replacing that fuzzy contract with a,  not
perfect, but at least with most terms spelt out, new agreement.

Simon






___
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] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[Simon Poole]

Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the 
countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the 
derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the 
EU you are not in trouble, just if.


Simon


Am 17.06.2011 16:54, schrieb John Smith:

..
This could be hard, especially since OSM-F isn't complying with
Chinese law, so why would others comply with EU law unless they were
in the EU?




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.07.2011 20:31, schrieb John Smith:

On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
  wrote:

[] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use
in the digital era,

You were talking about databases, however databases can still store
copyrightable content, in this case it's copyright that we're talking
about, if copyright weren't an issue the database could just be
relicensed, but there is copyright involved so it can't.


No, no, no,  we are going through this slow  and painful process because 
the OSMF stated
that it would  ask each contributor to re-license their data, simply 
because that's the

right thing to do.

That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any 
rights in the data they
contributed.  As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on 
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes 
we are simply
pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to 
spend hours arguing
about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are 
just pretending-.


Because the whole thing is more an ethical question than a legal one, I 
have suggested
before (on talk-de) the following resolution objects (points and ways) 
created by CT accepters
stay in, in all version, objects  created by CT objectors get thrown out 
in all versions. Nice and

symmetric and equally distributes the pain.

Simon




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Andreas Perstinger:


BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that 
a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically 
here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just 
reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river 
is not enough:



Which is really not a big surprise, there a many many activities that we 
engage in day by day in which you continuously make decisions (as in 
mapping). Should I place the brick a bit more to the left or to the 
right, should I place a node there or better here.


Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse 
it for creativity (not that a crooked brick wall couldn't be a work of 
art, but most of the time it's just crooked).


Simon




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.07.2011 01:40, schrieb John Smith:

On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole  wrote:

That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
the data they
contributed.  As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we
are simply
pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend
hours arguing
about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just
pretending-.

Think that all you like, it won't make it any more true than the
comment about copyright not really applying in the digital age, the
fact is maps and map making are covered by copyright, and copyright is
recognised in most countries. Otherwise we could take other
copyrighted maps and copy them.


-Maps- are covered by copyright. But a pile of geo data is not a map, 
and I can use  it for many
many purposes with output that nobody would ever confuse with a map. 
Just as the collections of
measurements that mappers made before the dawn of computers were not a 
map, but simply

the underlying data.

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, 
which are rather recent

and had nothing to do with morals.

Simon

Am 07.07.2011 01:54, schrieb John Smith:

On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole  wrote:

Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it
for creativity

I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things
down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the
morally right thing to do which is usually where laws stem from.

___
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 change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.07.2011 01:56, schrieb Anthony:
...
There certainly is creativity involved in making a brick wall. 
Choosing a herringbone bond vs. a stretcher bond, for instance. And in 
some cases it can be copyrightable - not if it's just a herringbone or 
a stretcher bond, but if the pattern is unique enough, it's certainly 
copyrightable. Depends on the specifics. Just like mapping. 

Just like in map-making, not in surveying.

If you design a nice brick pattern clearly the pattern has potential to 
be  protectable, however a builder imperfectly following your pattern is 
not being creative.


Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

In terms of laws, sure.

Am 07.07.2011 02:08, schrieb John Smith:

On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole  wrote:

Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.

I didn't know the late 1800s was considered "rather recent"

___
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 change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Well  300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable 
letters) which doesn't make it recent,

but still twice as old as copyright law.

The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, 
not moral as you imply.


Simon

Am 07.07.2011 02:12, schrieb John Smith:

On 7 July 2011 10:10, Simon Poole  wrote:

In terms of laws, sure.

Well copying wasn't much of a problem until the invention of the
printing press, which according to you was relatively recent as well.

___
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 change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid 
getting sucked in to his endless threads.


But it was  2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated 
book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I 
needed a short break :-)


Simon


Am 07.07.2011 08:58, schrieb Frederik Ramm:

Simon,
Andreas,
all,

   when discussing these things with the person who goes by the 
pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of 
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork".


The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of 
motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data 
loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so 
much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the "old 
OSM", or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether.


Now if it turned out that the license change went through like a 
breeze, with very limited data loss that is patched up within weeks, 
they would become a laughing stock - like the prophet without the doom.


While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible 
damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even 
absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look 
like idiots for starting a fork in the first place.


Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a 
good basis for a rational argument.


Or, to say it with fewer words: don't waste your time.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Simon Poole]

Geo-referenced facts?

And, all of your examples other even less potential to be a protected 
work than your typical way.


Simon

Am 08.07.2011 09:10, schrieb Maarten Deen:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:

On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:

The idea that the OSM database "just reproduces geographical facts"
is, quite frankly, laughable.


I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a
non-geographical fact in the database.


Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of 
the highway tag is not a geographical fact. The whole craft section, 
lots of the non_physical stuff. And I'm sure there's more.


Regards,
Maarten

___
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] [talk-au] Bing

[Simon Poole]

Am 11.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Grant Slater:


The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.
.
The last time I read Nearmaps ToS I believe they were in fact -not- 
claiming any rights in
traces from their imagery, but requiring you to enter in to a contract 
with them (via
acceptance  of the ToS) that you would only license the data you 
generated in a specific

way.

But I might be mistaken. In any case as has been discussed here before, 
the level of protection
of photographic imagery differs so strongly from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction, that it doesn't
seem wise to me to bet on there being no rights from the original source 
remaining in traces.


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Simon Poole]

It's not just remapping that effects this, we are still seeing between 
60-100 pre-CTs signups

accepting the CTs per day without any indication of this slowing down.

I expect a couple of 10'000 more before we actually relicense.

Simon

Am 10.08.2011 09:16, schrieb 80n:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Stephan Knauss 
mailto:o...@stephans-server.de>> wrote:


Hi,


On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote:

Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale,
for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going
to happen.


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.

The data is not simply replaced, but mostly improved by having
more high-resolution imagery available.

You can read the whole success story in the forum.


What's your estimate for how long it is going to take?




___
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

[Simon Poole]

Am 10.08.2011 10:50, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:


So the situation would have been much improved if there
were a sign up as PD user with a very simple PD-CT.



I fail to see how a "PD-CT" could be significantly simpler than the already
(I would say too simple) simple current CTs.

Ok all the voting stuff could be left away since essentially the data 
could be

distributed under any license the OSMF chooses without referring back to
the mapper.

I just had to chuckle to myself, imagining the storm of complaints that a
license change vote without the "PD-CT" accepters would cause.

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Simon Poole]

Am 10.08.2011 11:29, schrieb Nic Roets:

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen  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.
That is naturally the case because we have a well known source and 
formal reasons
to be very sure that the data is actually really PD in the case of the 
TIGER data.


In the case of an individual mappers contribution we have a very 
different situation
where essentially we would need the same level of agreement as the 
current CTs.


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Simon Poole]

Am 11.08.2011 01:50, schrieb Henk Hoff:

...

Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you 
agree every time you use one of its services.




I normally refer to

http://wikimapia.org/terms_reference.html

for ToS for something similar to OSM.

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Simon Poole]

Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:

...
It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about.
The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion
only is about what license.


A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use 
our data,

the license could be CC0, but still a license.

Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to 
deal

with them.




CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest
version
includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new,
unknown
and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain
path.
Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and
reduces the amount
of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning.
(But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation)



They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for 
databases. AFAIK
we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing 
the license in
the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a 
mechanism for doing

exactly that).

And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go 
away, we need
contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation 
in to account,

not make believe stuff.

Simon




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Simon Poole]

Am 11.08.2011 12:00, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:

Thanks Simon for your constructive reply.
(contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll)

But the EC directive does not oblige us to license
data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF.

If we choose for no-license or just PD
(give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that.

That is why I said: the necessity of a license has
never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental
threads).


The default condition is that your rights to your work of art, database 
(even
in the case of the sui generis database rights) etc. are protected. If 
you want

to allow somebody to use your work, you have to grant them the rights to do
so, this is called a license. Even in the extreme case of essentially 
allowing

everything to be done by anybody, you still have to state this. In the many
countries that do not have an PD equivalent, this again boils down to a
license.




I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the
people of this world if our license terms are minimized
(so PD).

So do I, but that is a completely different discussion. The compromise
between the PD and the viral share-a-like license fractions is the ODbL,
trying to undo that will -not- result in a PD OSM database.

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Simon Poole]

Olaf

What you are suggesting would have amounted to allowing every single 
pre-CT mapper
a veto on the license change process. With something around 300'000 
pre-CT mappers,
this is obviously not just not practical, it is simply absurd. Nobody 
likes losing data and
mappers, but it is unavoidable in a process involving so many people 
with so divergent

views on the subject at hand.

I have to yet see anybody claim that the CTs or the ODbL are perfect, we 
are just so far
down the road in the process that the kind of change you have suggested 
would have
implied restarting the whole process. There was ample time and 
opportunity to give
input and work on the CTs -now- that has gone and any amount of 
complaining by
you will not change that (and I say that as somebody who rather unhappy 
with certain
aspects of the CTs which I consider substantially more important than 
your fear of

conspiracies).

Simon




Am 12.08.2011 09:17, schrieb Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer:

[Robert Kaiser, 11.08.2011, 21:17]:

Most of us always agreed that our data is "the data of the OSM project" as
soon as we contributed it, and that the project will always be able to use
it. Some disagree apparently and make the life of the project much harder.

Unfortunately it is not "the OSM project" that will decide what happens with
the data in the future. Many contributors who are important parts of the
project will not be allowed to vote on future license changes. The sysadmins
even reserve the right to remove voting rights from people by blocking their
edit rights. See the definition of "active contributor" in the CT to
understand why. Members of both the sysadmins and of the legal working group
are aware of this, but they have clearly stated that they do not want this to
change. Loosing a few contributors (and their data) is regarded as a minor
problem.

My opinion is that the project consists of all people that contribute to it,
and that all contributors should be acknowledged for their work. Some
influential people disagree obviously, and this make the life of the project
much harder.

OIaf


___
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

[Simon Poole]

Am 12.08.2011 10:27, schrieb Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer:
I named my concerns long before the CT were last revised, and I even 
showed that I was willing to work towards concrete ways to fix these 
issues. It is not my fault that the issues was nevertheless ignored. 


Your changes, as has been pointed out to you before, wouldn't have been 
backwards compatible with the initial CTs.

(and  I say that as somebody who rather unhappy with certain aspects of the
CTs which I consider substantially more important than your fear of
conspiracies).

I do not fear conspiracies and would greatly appreciate it if you stop
misrepresenting my position.


Well your position was:

"Just for the record: Both the wording of the CT and the behaviour of the
sysadmins have disenfrachised me. I will never contribute to OpenStreetMap
again (and not only because you are currently blocking my acount frpom
contributing)."

Have you changed your mind (which I would consider quite legitimate) and do 
actually
want to continue to contribute, or why are you even participating in this 
discussion?

Simon




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Simon Poole]

Nobody has claimed that everything leading up to the license changed was
handled perfectly, with hindsight I would suspect that a couple of 
things would

have been handled differently by everybody involved.

But I have not seen anything that would indicate that the outcome of
any such better (from a formal point of view) process would have been
different than what we got from what actually happened (ok, naturally
we would now be arguing over what a valid contributor vote should have
been 4 years ago, but it would still be arguing over process, not the 
result).


Could we, just perhaps, at last get over the continuous bickering about 
stuff

that transpired a long time ago and move on?

With other words: please get a life.

Simon


Am 15.08.2011 23:15, schrieb Florian Lohoff:

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:45:41PM -0400, Anthony wrote:

So what's the problem?  You don't want to grant OSMF the right to
relicense.  OSMF doesn't want your edits without the right to
relicense them.

Why do you want to force your edits, *which they don't want*, upon them?

I have a problem with the OSMF saying it represents OSM. But at
least it does not represent me nor have i seen a formal delegation
of the OSMs future to the OSMF.

So i see multiple problems with the whole relicensing process:

- No legitimation of the OSMF e.g. vote by all contributers
   or delegation of powers to the OSMF by the contributers
- No Contributers formal poll or majority to
   a) a license change
   b) license content

So please dont state that the OSMF represents the contributers. It does not.
And if we see the contributers beeing OSM so the OSMF neither represents OSM.

So even if you disagree on parts you might accept that some of the
contributers feel exspelled from OSM by the OSMF which some of us
feel is a very nebulous foundation which is not really connected to
our daily work but still requests all powers.

Flo


___
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] V1 Object Statistics

[Simon Poole]

I've produced some numbers on how many objects were created by mappers 
that have agreed to the CTs and related stuff, similar to the numbers 
on  odbl.de, here:


http://he.poole.ch/odblv1.html

Depending on the availability of extracts for other regions, I intend to 
add more.


Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] V1 Object Statistics

[Simon Poole]

As was to be expected, there was at least one bug in the script :-/

I've regenerated the tables with the correction and some additional 
features. Further the worldwide stats are now based on the most

recent full history dump.

Simon

Am 18.08.2011 00:30, schrieb Simon Poole:


I've produced some numbers on how many objects were created by mappers 
that have agreed to the CTs and related stuff, similar to the numbers 
on  odbl.de, here:


http://he.poole.ch/odblv1.html

Depending on the availability of extracts for other regions, I intend 
to add more.


Simon


___
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] V1 Object Statistics

[Simon Poole]

I've fixed another issue that distorted the overall numbers (the per 
user stats were correct), regenerated
everything with the current full history dump (from June), and added a 
couple of further countries.


Overall, the situation seems to be substantially better than I would 
have expected, the direct losses from
object creators that haven't agreed to the CTs would seem to be quite 
limited.


Naturally there is still a lot of room for improvement, as the 
comparison Germany - Switzerland illustrates
(while Switzerland is roughly 10 times smaller, the mapper and object 
density are very similar, and there are
no larger imports in both countries, contrary for example to the 
Netherlands).


Simon

Am 19.08.2011 23:34, schrieb Simon Poole:

As was to be expected, there was at least one bug in the script :-/

I've regenerated the tables with the correction and some additional 
features. Further the worldwide stats are now based on the most

recent full history dump.

Simon

Am 18.08.2011 00:30, schrieb Simon Poole:


I've produced some numbers on how many objects were created by 
mappers that have agreed to the CTs and related stuff, similar to the 
numbers on  odbl.de, here:


http://he.poole.ch/odblv1.html

Depending on the availability of extracts for other regions, I intend 
to add more.


Simon


___
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] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

[Simon Poole]

I think I've said this before, but any way you look at it, there is a big
difference between TimSC and the US Census Bureau. I just can't
see how we could use a mappers data without some kind of assurance
that the mapper actually has the rights necessary to make their
contributions PD or a similar equivalent. Since such an agreement
is unlikely to be much simpler than the CTs, it just doesn't make sense
to go and produce yet another agreement for these special cases.

In the case of the US Census Bureau there is no question about the status
of their data (well at least in the US of A :-)).

So much said, the wording in the LWG minutes is really not the clearest.

Simon


Am 24.08.2011 15:52, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:

There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).


Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
contributions are public domain.

There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to
ODbL.

A very small number of contributors have declined the new
contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in
the public domain.  This does not mean that the collective data in
the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts
the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that
their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without
acceptance of the contribut[or terms].

(I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and
Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.)

I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in
the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on
Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my
contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such
conditions are required by law".

Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM.
The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but
any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no
difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're
not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1]

The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline",
which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are
people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and
though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons.

What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the
OSM database"?

cheers
Richard

[1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US
Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;)




___
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] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

[Simon Poole]

Am 24.08.2011 16:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm:

...
One of the PD-but-not-CT-people said something like "I don't want to 
give any kind of explicit assurance/permission to OSMF". I.e. they 
don't want a contract with OSMF. But I think that could be remedied by 
offering them a differently worded declaration to "sign", one that 
would subsume the CTs but not be specific to OSMF.


Such a document might well be more complex than the CTs but simplicity 
or complexity does not seem to be the issue.



Well, the issue seems to be more that they simply can't get
themselves to agree to the same terms as the rest of the plebs.

I have a non-diplomatic response, that has to with lakes and
jumping, that I'll refrain from giving now.

As I pointed out the last time this was discussed, going down
the path of a separate agreement raises tons of issues, for
example wrt voting rights (should parties to such an agreement
get them or not). I don't believe that, except if the interested
contributors get to a consensus among themselves and actually
produce such a document, we will have agreement on it within
a useful time frame (aka in less than twelve months).

Simon




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

[Simon Poole]

Well one solution is very simple: just contribute stuff that you mapped 
yourself,
and hey presto, 99.9% of all problems vanish (including any issues with 
agreeing to

the CTs).

Simon

Am 24.08.2011 19:34, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:


Simon said:

>Distributing data just
>because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being
>considered negligent.

Then distributing data because someone on the web has stated that

 is was CT/ODBL compliant is even negligent.

If you do not provide a set of tools or rules that a user can

handle to tests for license compatibility, you cannot even

keep him responsible for what he clicked ages ago, probably without

profound reading, let alone understanding.

And as in the OSM case of uploading distributed elements of data

that are often geographically unrelated by place space or source

(and often of a mixed character) stating any license compatibility will

be a risky business for an individual mapper.

And since OSM has a defined license contract with its  mappers, it

is much easier for a third party too to hold OSMF liable for any 
breaches now


instead of the individual that made a mistake.

And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination

with a username and email as an ID does not invariably

lead to one person to be kept responsible.

Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain.

Gert

*Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
*Verzonden:* woensdag 24 augustus 2011 17:57
*Aan:* legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
*Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring 
contributions as PD



But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being
considered negligent.

Simon

Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com: <mailto:yar...@gmail.com:>

If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the effects.

Whatever you do or don't sign.

- Rob.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

"ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"  
<mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:


Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the
liability of the suitability to the contributor,
where declaring PD does not.
The Board wants us to sign a contract with them.
It's not about data but about compliance.
  
  
  
Regards,
  
Gert Gremmen,
  
  
  
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-

Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net]
Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM
Aan:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org  <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as
PD
  
There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August

(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
  
>  Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their

>  contributions are public
domain.
>  
>  There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be

>  maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to
>  ODbL.
>  
>  A very small number of contributors have declined the new

>  contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in
>  the public domain.  This does not mean that the collective data in
>  the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts
>  the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that
>  their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without
>  acceptance of the contribut[or terms].
  
(I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase

and
Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.)
  
I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in

the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on
Wikipedia and on
the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my
contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such
conditions are required by law".
  
Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM.

The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright,
but
any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no
difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but
we're
not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1]
  
The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline",

which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are
people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and
though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons.
  
What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the

OSM database"?
  
cheers

Richard
  
[1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US

Federal data is publi

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

[Simon Poole]

I believe that you don't really want to start a discussion where good 
faith stops

and negligence begins, but there is a line somewhere there.

Having an agreement with the mapper along the lines of the CTs is 
clearly safe(*),

a statement on his wiki page, who knows?

Simon

* forgetting about jurisdiction etc.

Am 25.08.2011 03:22, schrieb SteveC:

On 8/24/2011 8:56 AM, Simon Poole wrote:


But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being
considered negligent.


You need to search around for "safe harbor provisions".

Steve




Simon

Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com:
If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the 
effects.


Whatever you do or don't sign.

- Rob.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

"ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"  
wrote:


Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the
liability of the suitability to the contributor,
where declaring PD does not.
The Board wants us to sign a contract with them.
It's not about data but about compliance.



Regards,

Gert Gremmen,



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net]
Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM
Aan:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as
PD

There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).

>  Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
>  contributions are public
domain.
>
>  There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
>  maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to
>  ODbL.
>
>  A very small number of contributors have declined the new
>  contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in
>  the public domain.  This does not mean that the collective data in
>  the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts
>  the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that
>  their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without
>  acceptance of the contribut[or terms].

(I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase
and
Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.)

I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in
the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on
Wikipedia and on
the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my
contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such
conditions are required by law".

Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM.
The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright,
but
any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no
difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but
we're
not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1]

The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline",
which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are
people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and
though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons.

What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the
OSM database"?

cheers
Richard

[1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US
Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;)






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




___
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] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

[Simon Poole]

Well we do seem to have cases with a PD statement, were the data is in fact
(potentially) encumbered and the mapper probably actually wanted to 
apply the
statement only to the data which he originally created and his edits. 
See TimSCs

wiki page for a mapper (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:TimSC) that
realized that and tries to fix it.

And now the OSMF is supposed to second guess what all the mappers with
similar statements really intended to say?

Simon

Am 26.08.2011 01:23, schrieb Ian Sergeant:


Simon Poole  wrote on 25/08/2011 05:53:04 PM:

> Having an agreement with the mapper along the lines of the CTs is
> clearly safe(*), a statement on his wiki page, who knows?

I'd come down on the other side of this line.  It would be easier to 
argue that some long click-through agreement was unread or 
misunderstood.  An explicit statement that you have included on your 
wiki page that your edits are unencumbered, in the public domain and 
freely available for any use is pretty convincing to me.


I'm still using some public domain sources to assist in contributing 
to OSM. I don't think anything I have agreed to in the CT prevents me 
from using other's PD contributions incorporated with mine, and I'm 
currently quite comfortable in that position.


Ian.


___
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] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

[Simon Poole]

Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have 
made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to 
vouch for the data and accept the CTs?


 At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this 
would seem to be doable without creating a conflict.


Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

[Simon Poole]

Hi Michael

Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply 
discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the 
OSMF.


However that doesn't seem to happening and I would hope that giving them 
an alternative path to retain their data in the DB (which is not really 
very attractive for a number of reasons) could loosen things up a bit.


Simon

Am 31.08.2011 15:25, schrieb Michael Collinson:

Hi Simon,

Basically no. Our stance is that the only copy of their data that is 
accessible is what they contributed only under CC-BY-SA in a database 
which is published CC-BY-SA.  Whilst that stance may be arguable, the 
number of contributors is small, (3?), there is still a paradox 
between making a broad PD/CC0 declaration and not accepting the more 
limited subset new contributor terms, and there is a simple, practical 
solution without involving folks in a lot of technical work.


Such mappers have taken a principled and clear but minority position 
that OSM data should be published PD/CC0 right now and have not 
accepted the contributors terms to make that point. The simple 
practical solution is to now accept the terms having made the point. 
Outside the "right now", the new terms do not logically conflict and 
provide a rational mechanism for further engagement with the OSM 
community on what our license should be.


Mike


On 31/08/2011 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:


Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have 
made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to 
vouch for the data and accept the CTs?


 At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this 
would seem to be doable without creating a conflict.


Simon


___
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] Tweeting mappers who have not responded

[Simon Poole]

IMHO at this stage anything goes, so twitter, facebook etc.

I do have to say that it probably won't be all to successful, by far
the majority of non-respondents simply missed the mail from the LWG
for various reasons and have no idea that they actually have to react,
and those are unlikely to follow OSM anywhere else.

If the LWG gets around to it, another lot of mails will probably have the
largest effect.

On a one by one base using social networks to get in contact with
identifiable mappers is a good idea. I've actually played around with the
idea of  sending postal mail to a couple of mappers were their home
address is determinable.

Simon

Am 04.09.2011 12:52, schrieb Andrew:

While I’ve been investigating uncontacted mappers I’ve noticed that some of them
follow OSM on Twitter.

Has anyone considered make a request there to get in contact and sign up.

A possible message (with a link to the full request) could be:

OpenStreetMap asks mappers from before 2011 to relicense their work under new
terms so that we can go to the ODbL. http://osm.org/ct

--
Andrew


___
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] Tweeting mappers who have not responded

[Simon Poole]

Essentially (and I have relatively reliable numbers) the mappers in question
have been happy that such an effort was undertaken to get in contact with
them. At least from my experience negative response is essentially non-
existent.

Naturally it all depends on how you do it, and I'm not suggesting to be
heavy handed wrt the message delivered.

Simon



Am 04.09.2011 21:34, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:

Don't let your desire to convince tempt you to
become a spammer.
Your interest (and OSM's in your view) not always
correspond to the one who is addressed.

Gert.



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Verzonden: zondag 4 september 2011 13:54
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tweeting mappers who have not responded

IMHO at this stage anything goes, so twitter, facebook etc.

I do have to say that it probably won't be all to successful, by far
the majority of non-respondents simply missed the mail from the LWG
for various reasons and have no idea that they actually have to react,
and those are unlikely to follow OSM anywhere else.

If the LWG gets around to it, another lot of mails will probably have the
largest effect.

On a one by one base using social networks to get in contact with
identifiable mappers is a good idea. I've actually played around with the
idea of  sending postal mail to a couple of mappers were their home
address is determinable.

Simon

Am 04.09.2011 12:52, schrieb Andrew:

While I’ve been investigating uncontacted mappers I’ve noticed that some of them
follow OSM on Twitter.

Has anyone considered make a request there to get in contact and sign up.

A possible message (with a link to the full request) could be:

OpenStreetMap asks mappers from before 2011 to relicense their work under new
terms so that we can go to the ODbL. http://osm.org/ct

--
Andrew


___
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

[OSM-legal-talk] Actual numbers on PD contributions

[Simon Poole]

  
  

I've produced some numbers to getter a better grip on and if the PD
"issue" has any real significance.

I found 476 mappers in the PD or CC0 categories, of these (using a
simple lower case name comparison), I was able to determine the UID
of 375. Obviously there is some potential for errors because there
is no one to one relationship between UIDs/OSM logins and wiki user
names.

Of the 375, 304 have accepted the CTs.

5 (five) have refused.

And 66 haven't decided yet.

With the same list of 476 mappers I ran a modified version of my V1
script that gave the following numbers for objects created by "PD"
mappers:

Nodes:            1'195'041  (0.11%)
Highways:       92'374   (0.22%)
Other ways:        74'139   (0.13%)
Routes:                 255   (0.20%)
Other rel:          3'740   (0.42%)

And a total of 42 "PD" mappers that actually still have V1 objects
in the database.

Notes:
- the numbers are based on the full history planet from 2011-06-19,
license data from the 2011-09-08

- the numbers include TimSC, whose contributions, as we know, are
not really PD.

Simon




  



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Actual numbers on PD contributions

[Simon Poole]

Am 10.09.2011 10:01, schrieb Simon Poole:



And a total of 42 "PD" mappers that actually still have V1 objects in 
the database.


Just a small clarification: the 42 (naturally) does not include "PD" 
mappers that have accepted the CTs.


Simon
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Affect of Remapping on Contributor Terms Acceptance (Numbers!)

[Simon Poole]

[Apologies in advance for the HTML formatting]

As you may have noticed, the sysadmins were kind enough to generate a 
new full history dump over the last couple of days. Besides generating 
new numbers for odbl.poole.ch (which will take some time for the full 
set), I was mainly interested in seeing how large the effect of 
(intentional or not) remapping has been over the last three months.


As can be seen from the following numbers, while the effect is not 
particularly large (nobody has really called for aggressive remapping 
yet) it is quite noticeable.


SImon



No


Unknown


Total Diff


2011-06-19  2011-09-19  Diff2011-06-19  2011-09-19  
Diff

Nodes   32'505'411
32'296'893
-208'518
25'315'574
23'618'704
-1'696'870
-1'905'388
-3.30 %
Highways777'070
764'439
-12'631
1'703'211
1'668'481
-34'730
-47'361
-1.91 %
Other Ways  1'245'547
1'233'705
-11'842
702'679
659'473
-43'206
-55'048
-2.83 %
Routes  4'208
4'047
-161
3'112
3'078
-34
-195
-2.66 %
Other Relations 45'957
45'635
-322
10'007
9'724
-284
-606
-1.08 %
Mappers
288
287
-1
59'905
59'339
-566
-567
-0.94 %



Note: both set of numbers (from the 19th of June and the 19th of 
September) use the same licensing state data from the 22nd of September. 
The "Mappers" row reflect the change in the number of mappers that 
created objects that are still visible in the database.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Effect of Remapping on Contributor TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)

[Simon Poole]

The numbers -only- show the effect of remapping, currently the far 
larger effect is acceptance of the CTs by mappers who haven't done that 
up to now. Around 0.1 to 0.2 % per month (depending on the object 
category). In other words, using just as silly extrapolations as you do, 
we would have 100% of everything anyway in roughly two years if we 
simply just let things carry on as they are now (which is not the 
intention).


Simon

Am 24.09.2011 16:29, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:




It seems as if the community is not that motivated

to re-map  all those evil CC-BY-SA data  that

sneeked into into the future OdBL fork.

In this pace we need more then 7 years to fix it.

Common CT-OSM members, start mapping all

that misleading non-CT data ! Someone

may use it in a routeplanner and drive

by accident  into a CC-BY-SA road, and

who knows what happens then.



Gert

*Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
*Verzonden:* Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:56 AM
*Aan:* Licensing and other legal discussions.
*Onderwerp:* [OSM-legal-talk] Affect of Remapping on Contributor 
TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)



[Apologies in advance for the HTML formatting]

As you may have noticed, the sysadmins were kind enough to generate a 
new full history dump over the last couple of days. Besides generating 
new numbers for odbl.poole.ch (which will take some time for the full 
set), I was mainly interested in seeing how large the effect of 
(intentional or not) remapping has been over the last three months.


As can be seen from the following numbers, while the effect is not 
particularly large (nobody has really called for aggressive remapping 
yet) it is quite noticeable.


SImon




No





Unknown





*Total Diff*





2011-06-19



2011-09-19



Diff



2011-06-19



2011-09-19



Diff




Nodes



32'505'411



32'296'893



-208'518



25'315'574



23'618'704



-1'696'870



-1'905'388



-3.30 %

Highways



777'070



764'439



-12'631



1'703'211



1'668'481



-34'730



-47'361



-1.91 %

Other Ways



1'245'547



1'233'705



-11'842



702'679



659'473



-43'206



-55'048



-2.83 %

Routes



4'208



4'047



-161



3'112



3'078



-34



-195



-2.66 %

Other Relations



45'957



45'635



-322



10'007



9'724



-284



-606



-1.08 %

Mappers



288



287



-1



59'905



59'339



-566



-567



-0.94 %



Note: both set of numbers (from the 19th of June and the 19th of 
September) use the same licensing state data from the 22nd of 
September. The "Mappers" row reflect the change in the number of 
mappers that created objects that are still visible in the database.




___
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] Effect of Remapping on Contributor TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)

[Simon Poole]

Gert  is naturally correct, but we all know the jokes about statistics.

I would have, in the same grain, used the highway objects to illustrate 
my point better. Particularly considering that the "no" node count is 
very high at least partially due to some very large imports where we 
already know that at least one will be replaced by more current data 
(ABS2006), just as I suspect that a large part of the imports by mapper 
argrath can be replaced just as easily by the Japanese community.


As I pointed out in my original mail: we haven't started remapping in 
earnest in the problematic countries, for example Germany , simply 
because in makes sense to reach out to mappers that haven't reacted yet 
first. In other countries, for example Ireland, we already have so high 
acceptance rates that it is actually less work to remap the remaining 
missing data than expend further effort in getting in contact with a 
couple of missing mappers (I expect Ireland to show 100% in all 
categories soon).


Simon


Am 25.09.2011 15:16, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:


Simon,

_Please respect the mailing list charter_. You may

contest my irony, but refrain from qualifications as "silly"

If you don't agree, you may say so in normal words.

We know all that extrapolations are not reality, but

your numbers _do_ suggest conclusions like mine.

Again, without Irony this time

(Limited to nodes only for sake of comprehension: )

Simple calculus suggests that 208'518/ 32'505'411is only 0.64% of the 
NO-voted


data, and simple calculus suggests that it takes 155 quarters to fix 
that in this pace.


If the CT-unknown-voters may in the end all be convinced to CT-yes-voters

that will solve only 25'315'574/32'505'411 = 43% of the

whole non-compliant data set (again, nodes only).

Interesting is data also to notice that 288 single CT-NO-voters have 
contributed


approximately 128%  amount of node data as the 60K  CT-unknown-voters 
all together.


(other data approximately equal).

I am really curious to what kind of math you have resource to in order

to qualify this pace as "quite noticeable" and how your math

 resolve all of this in roughly 2 years without effort.

And has anyone come up with a campaign yet to fix all this ?

How Simon , do you intend to increase the re-mapping from

0.64% to for example 10%  ( 20-fold) , and it will still take

the community 2 ½ year then.

And for contacting 60K mappers, will the community

just ignore their opinion and declare them CT-compliant

by default ? Or will their data be deleted after 2 ½ years ?

Hey OSMF, we need steering here !

Gert

*Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
*Verzonden:* zaterdag 24 september 2011 16:52
*Aan:* legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
*Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Effect of Remapping on Contributor 
TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)



The numbers -only- show the effect of remapping, currently the far 
larger effect is acceptance of the CTs by mappers who haven't done 
that up to now. Around 0.1 to 0.2 % per month (depending on the object 
category). In other words, using just as silly extrapolations as you 
do, we would have 100% of everything anyway in roughly two years if we 
simply just let things carry on as they are now (which is not the 
intention).


Simon

Am 24.09.2011 16:29, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert 
Gremmen:




It seems as if the community is not that motivated

to re-map  all those evil CC-BY-SA data  that

sneeked into into the future OdBL fork.

In this pace we need more then 7 years to fix it.

Common CT-OSM members, start mapping all

that misleading non-CT data ! Someone

may use it in a routeplanner and drive

by accident  into a CC-BY-SA road, and

who knows what happens then.



Gert

*Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
*Verzonden:* Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:56 AM
*Aan:* Licensing and other legal discussions.
*Onderwerp:* [OSM-legal-talk] Affect of Remapping on Contributor 
TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)



[Apologies in advance for the HTML formatting]

As you may have noticed, the sysadmins were kind enough to generate a 
new full history dump over the last couple of days. Besides generating 
new numbers for odbl.poole.ch (which will take some time for the full 
set), I was mainly interested in seeing how large the effect of 
(intentional or not) remapping has been over the last three months.


As can be seen from the following numbers, while the effect is not 
particularly large (nobody has really called for aggressive remapping 
yet) it is quite noticeable.


SImon





No





Unknown





*Total Diff*





2011-06-19



2011-09-19



Diff



2011-06-19



2011-09-19



Diff




Nodes



32'505'411



32'296'893

 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

[Simon Poole]

Am 17.11.2011 01:35, schrieb Andreas Labres:

On 16.11.11 12:28, Simon Poole wrote:

Currently there is no agreement on what exactly the rules/policy/algorithm
will be to determine which objects or tags will survive the transition

Sorry, but that's the core of the problem: this /has/ to be set first. ASAP.
First we need the rules, then we can execute them.


Couldn't agree more.

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

[Simon Poole]

We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started more 
or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is no 
real hope that a significant amount of this data will be re-licensed by 
the original mappers, and since these objects pre-date the introduction 
of history* (versions), they simply have to go.


Obviously remapping doesn't not change the on-the ground geometry so it 
is likely that replacement nodes will be at the same or at least nearby 
locations, regardless of  data source for the remapping (aerial images, 
GPS etc.).


Simon

Am 17.11.2011 07:07, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:

You are right Richard.
This O-trick actually is just a shortcut for delete and (re)place.

Just the thread in which it is presented is a bit suspicious.

The reason why anyone would want to remove a node and replace one at the same
(or approximate) location "escapes"  my logic.
It disturbs history, and makes no contribution to the database at all.

Unless the license issue of course

And thank you for the compliment Richard (about the 0%) , I
always appreciate comments from those who know better.

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment.


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net]
Verzonden: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:22 PM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

Gert Gremmen wrote:

Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
owner, just as copying from google would violate their
terms of service.

As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about
Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-December/032278.html,
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032977.html,
etc.)

If you actually _used_ the software - which you've never shown any sign of
doing and which I don't expect you to do any time soon - you would see that
this is simply removing a finger movement from "delete selected node, insert
node at mouse position". The action is exactly the same, yet I don't hear
you clamouring for the "insert node" function to be removed.

It is a simple convenience for the mapper. As you would know if you actually
used it, the node placement is entirely at the discretion of the mapper;
Potlatch does not automatically place a node at the previous position or
indeed anywhere. Just as with any other OSM editing, the mapper will usually
be working from a background layer, such as Bing or a GPS track, and their
placement will usually be based on this. And again, if you actually used the
software, you would also find that Potlatch makes it very easy to add the
source tag to a node or way during your edit, again with one single
keypress.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, hey?

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OSM-Database-Re-Build-tp6997302p7001734.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] OSM Database Re-Build

[Simon Poole]

Am 17.11.2011 08:37, schrieb Simon Poole:


We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started 
more or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is 
no real hope that a significant amount of this data will be 
re-licensed by the original mappers, and since these objects pre-date 
the introduction of history* (versions), they simply have to go.


Richard Fairhurst pointed out to me that versions actually always 
existed, but were zapped during one of the API transitions. Net result 
is the same.


Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - publishable memo for USA

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.12.2011 15:46, schrieb Frederik Ramm:

Hi,

On 12/08/2011 02:20 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

They produced a written report


I am intrigued by the joint authorship concept. If that was true 
(relatively) universally, then we could perhaps use that to force even 
those who haven't agreed to the license change to allow us (their 
co-authors) to continue to distribute their part of the work under a 
license we choose. At least under German copyright law, this would 
only require us to share our profits with them, and since our profit 
is zero, this whole issue could make the license change a breeze! 




Well the concept is not new and has been suggested before  at least 
in a couple of the major OSM countries  have concepts of joint 
authorship (UK, Germany for example), but the consequences seem to 
differ quite a lot in the details.


But the overriding reason why this is a path best not taken is that 
"force" boils down to legal action. And while for example in Germany 
permission to change the licence could not be unreasonably withheld, you 
would still have to ask each contributor first (unlikely that no answer 
would be considered consent).


In summary I don't quite see how the report changes anything, summarized 
it states:


a) maps are copyrightable in the US (not that we didn't know that)
b) online maps are copyrightable in the US (we assumed that too)
c) you could make a case that the underlying data of an online map is 
copyrightable (which we assume to some point for style files and 
similar... for the actually geographic data it is probably just speculation)
d) we need a set of contributor terms that control the relationship 
between the mappers and the OSMF (very novel suggestion ... one could 
argue that the current CTs don't really cover all relevant points but 
that is a different discussion)


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown

[Simon Poole]

I think you may have misunderstood the whole point of the exercise.

While there may be protectable IP in individual contributions depending 
on jurisdiction, maybe even joint rights in the whole database and we 
can be fairly sure that the OSM DB would lead to rights wrt EU DB 
protection legislation (we're just not quite sure who owned them 
pre-CTs), we are going through this process because the OSMF promised 
that it would not continue to distribute individual contributions 
against the mappers will (example at hand ABS2006 import in Australia).


How much finesse we use to determine exactly what gets deleted and what 
not is being discussed as you know, but the basic principle is not being 
questioned and insofar any protest and outcry based on ones personal 
interpretation of IPR is just misguided.


IMHO

Simon


Am 12.12.2011 14:58, schrieb fk270...@fantasymail.de:

After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided not to 
change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector. Some ways 
have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up to seven 
versions by me. That's enough to keep them and if you want to delete MY edits 
even though I have agreed to the CT, you may do that, but remapping them would 
ignore my editing history. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my 
hometown area, it's rather me who has the moral and legal right to decide what 
may be kept or not, not the right of a single-node mapper who draw two ways in 
2007.

There is only one correct location for an intersection and if another maspper 
has already occupied this location with his node, there is no sensible reason 
to recreate it on the same location. There is no copyright on single nodes, 
there is no copyright on moved nodes and there is no copyright on street names 
that have already passed the comparison with municipal government's street 
list. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's 
rather me who has the predominant copyright on this map and not the 
less-than-1% one-node contributors.

Some of the marked edits are mechanical work requiring neither local knowledge nor 
genius: correcting spelling mistakes (e.g. Grade2>grade2), debugging keepright 
fixmes, deleting created_by, etc.

There should be a functionality to mark their nodes and ways as checked, 
verified and absolutely insignificant concerning copyright. There is absolutely 
no case in history where a one-node mapper, even an anonymous one-node mapper, 
was able to claim a copyright based on his less-than-1% contribution.

If you want to delete or vandalize the whole map just for pleasing a 
non-responding anonymous single-node contributor while destroying the work of a 
150,000-node contributor, you may do that. I am not going to replace any of the 
vandalized nodes. As they are often located on important trunk roads, sometimes 
even on intersections, their removal might prevent efficient routing for many 
years.

Maybe the license change is just a sociological experiment (like the Milgram 
experiment) to check how stupid people are if they are told to remap existing 
nodes.

Cheers!



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Please don't confuse the matter by treating tagged and untagged notes 
the same.


If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is 
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of 
other ways) then he is doing exactly that, just because he is reusing an 
existing object (pre-numbered sheet remember) to mark a new interpolated 
position doesn't mean it is a derived work (because it is simply no 
different than taking a new sheet of paper with a different number).


Now if you wish to state that interpolation itself creates a derived 
work, please argue that.


Simon

Am 21.12.2011 13:10, schrieb Ed Avis:

A common way to adjust a node position is to move it halfway between
the old one and the new one.  For example, if there is already a way
on the map traced from GPS but you have a new GPS trace for it which
is a bit different, it would be unwise to adjust it to exactly fit
your new trace.  But you may expect to improve accuracy a bit if you
adjust it to about halfway between the old and new positions.
Similarly a node such as a bus stop may have its position tweaked to
somewhere in between where it was and the new observed position.

So I don't think you can assume that when a node is moved its position
information is 'cleaned' somehow.  The new position as often as not is
derived from the old position.

--
Ed Avis



___
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] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poole  writes:


If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,

That is exactly it: "improving" the geometry of a way.  Not replacing it.
If you take an existing street and adjust its position it is hard to argue
that you have taken a completely clean-room approach to doing so, not using
the existing geometry at all.  The existing geometry is there on your screen
while you are editing!


If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going 
to go, so what is your point again?



Now if you wish to state that interpolation itself creates a derived
work, please argue that.

By interpolation I was referring to the practice of taking two paths (be they
two GPS traces, one GPS trace and one existing way on the map, a way on the map
and a path visible in an aerial photograph, etc) and combining them to make a
new path which is roughly halfway between the two.  For example if mapping from
GPS plus an existing out-of-copyright map you may trace a way which is about
halfway between your GPS trace and what you see on the old map - since neither
of them by itself is entirely accurate.  Doing this makes the new path derived
from both the old one and the new one.

You are using derived in a common language sense, please argue why this 
is a derived work in the IP/legal sense (choose any jurisdiction you 
would like).


Simon

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.12.2011 14:15, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poole  writes:


If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?

Are we not talking about the following situation:

- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
  some new nodes
- mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes

In this case the third edit would have to be reverted because the new position
of the nodes is still based on work contributed by mapper B, even though they
have been moved since he created them.


IMHO no, if we assume that C is editing in good faith and actually 
improving the geometry (we might want to have a minimum distance 
requirement for a move to be considered ok).



You are using derived in a common language sense, please argue why this
is a derived work in the IP/legal sense (choose any jurisdiction you
would like).

That is a question for lawyers.  I do not know whether it is a derived work 
under
copyright law or sui generis database rights.  Normally the approach of the
project is to not import data from sources that do not have permission, and if 
it
gets into the database, to delete it (reverting the changeset) as soon as
possible.  We don't get into the business of judging whether we might get away
with including it anyway, because we are not lawyers.  So we have to use the
common-sense judgement of whether one piece of work builds on another.

In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery 
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator 
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The 
requirement has always been that we have had permission to trace at the 
point in time that the tracing happened (forgetting about special cases 
like NearMap) .  The argument of the proponents that IP exists at all in 
ways and similar objects has been that the tracing (regardless of 
source) was an expression of creativity and that that expresses itself 
in, among other properties,  the placement of nodes where it is found 
aesthetically pleasing.


So why is one a derived work and the other not?

Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.12.2011 14:50, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poole  writes:


In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
requirement has always been that we have had permission to trace at the
point in time that the tracing happened

Right - we require permission.  So for example tracing from Google Maps is not
allowed, even if the legal theory about not creating a derived work turns out
to be correct.

I contend that mappers' contributions would need to be treated no different to
any other external data source.  If we have permission, we can use them, if not,
we can't.  If one mapper illegitimately adjusted the position of a way by
using Google Earth as a backdrop, but then a second mapper moved the position
of the nodes some more, normal OSM practice would still be to delete the tainted
data.

So you contend that there was no permission to use positional 
information entered in the DB by other mappers to interpolate prior to 
the current CTs (obviously this is not covered by CC-by-SA 2.0)?


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] CLEANMAP global version

[Simon Poole]

A number of you have probably already seen CLEANMAP in its original 
incarnation as announced on Christmas. I've now expanded it to cover the 
whole planet and have made some further changes (odbl=clean support for 
example).


Please read the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CLEANMAP 
for details and updates.


The map can be found here http://cleanmap.poole.ch/ , please take into 
account that this is a small and slow machine.


Further I've just ran the weekly update for the  statistics on 
http://odbl.poole.ch/, over the past week the number of "pre-CT" 
mappers* that accepted the CTs grew to an absolute majority.   While 
this doesn't have any legal meaning, it is nonetheless a significant signal.


Simon

* this is based on the number of mappers that still hand visible data in 
the last full history dump, current numbers would be even a bit better.



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Way with almost nothing left but created by decliner

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.01.2012 23:42, schrieb Frederik Ramm:

Hi,

   here's an interesting example from the German forum. A way that was 
created by a decliner but later edited by 10 others; of everything the 
decliner originally created, only the very first node remains, 
everything else has been lost in the editing process.


OSMI duly paints this way in red - created by decliner, no chance of 
survival.


Instead of starting yet another thread on the subject on the German 
forum, the OP could have naturally simply remapped the way, which would 
have assured it 100% chance of survival .



Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Andrew Harvey:

.
There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get
mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content
CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to
the CTs anyway with the logic andrzej pointed out.

I would be happy to try to track down the source tags I used for this
data for the LWG, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it if I
don't feel the LWG will take it seriously when trying to clean the DB
of non-ODBL content.


Which non-ODBL compliant source would this be, if I may ask?

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways

[Simon Poole]

Am 30.01.2012 04:39, schrieb James Livingston:


Possibly that is true, and possibly it isn't. I think the biggest 
problem with split ways is that we aren't really sure how much of a 
problem they are.



Sure we know. And nothing is stopping you from doing the analysis yourself.
Until someone writes some code to actually process the history to deal 
with split/merged ways, and that code is given a test run on the 
database (or a representative sample of it), we're all just guessing 
about what impact it will have. I don't think the issue is going to go 
away until we have some hard numbers.

See above.

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.02.2012 14:32, schrieb Frederik Ramm:

.
- mapper contacts government asking for data
- government says "here, you can have that, but it may only be 
distributed under ODbL or CC-BY-SA, nothing else"
- mapper contributes data to OSM without even *telling* us that there 
is this additional requirement (CT only require that the mapper makes 
sure data is "compatible with current license")
IMHO the problem exists, but can only happen if the mapper ignores the 
community guidelines on imports*. That we don't do a particulary good 
job of communicating and enforcing these additional, over the basic CT 
terms,  rules (not just on imports) is not a big secret, but something 
that we can and should change going forward.


Simon

PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community 
discussion part in the first place.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[Simon Poole]

Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable.

But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue?

If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data 
(the "enforce" bit of my previous posting).


Simon


Am 13.02.2012 15:22, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:

2012/2/13 Simon Poole:

PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community
discussion part in the first place.


FYI: In Italy there are currently some imports going on, where the
data is licensed cc-by-2.5 and there are also other imports of the
past under this license in Italy. cc-by is not a very restrictive
license but still it imposes some problems for further license
changes. I'm pretty sure an import that is compatible with the current
licence (read: OdbL / CT and cc-by-sa2.0 ) will generally pass the
community discussion, if the data is nice (up to date, good quality).

cheers,
Martin

___
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] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[Simon Poole]

On the same topic:

I've started work on going over the import catalogue (giving a lot of 
room for stuff that is under  discussion or clearly ok (Corine)) and 
moving entries that either will or should go away with the licence 
transition (note green is -good- aka will be automatically deleted), 
and/or are not documented well enough to keep in the database and should 
be deleted after investigation.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#Imports_slated_for_deletion

As said above, the list isn't complete yet and probably contains a 
couple of false positives (stuff imported by GeoFabrik for example).


Simon

Am 13.02.2012 15:51, schrieb Richard Weait:

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable.

But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue?

If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data (the
"enforce" bit of my previous posting).

I think you mean, "respectfully request that the errant importer clean
up their own mess."  The DWG can be polled for help, but the community
should attempt to resolve this first.

___
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] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.02.2012 17:44, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:


(I assume you mean CC-By-SA)

Simon, I would like to know what your interpretation of the current
Contributor Terms version is, I know what LWG's interpretation is from
their meeting minutes and it must be different from your
interpretation.  If by "declared good" you mean declared
ODbL-compatible then there's nothing special in Poland because nothing
has been declared good.  The acceptance of CT, according to LWG (and
to my reading of CT 1.2.4) is not such a declaration, it is orthogonal
to ODbL compatibility.  There's no basis for anyone to assume such a
thing, worldwide not only in Poland.
I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a "current licence 
terms" refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to 
assume that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 
and ODbL + DbCL1.0 , implying that any imports have to be compatible 
with both*. I can't put my finger on an formal statement by the LWG that 
would indicate otherwise, can you?





Secondly as you know CC-By-SA licensed data has been contributed by
CT-accepters outside of Poland too and I wouldn't be surprised if it's
being contributed today taking advantage of the "current license"
still being the CC one.  It is not only through (what we call)
imports.


How can it be other than an "import", either a derivative or original 
work covered by CC-by-SA 2.0?





Even if it were through imports only, then I can't make out what you
mean by "erroneously".  First of all the imports in Poland have been
documented in the imports catalogue on the wiki, so this was in
keeping with the community guidelines as well as the CT.  This is not
true of the hundreds of local, smaller imports that are happening
every day (see the imported streets in Lima, or see the Santa Rosa
town in the El Oro canton of Ecuador and the nearby towns, and tell me
what their original license was) especially in non-English-speaking
countries, where the Contributor Terms is the only "binding" document.
  The community guidelines are really guidelines of the part of the
community contributing to the talk@ list and the English wiki, a tip
of an iceberg.


Naturally due to the nature of the project the amount of control that 
can be exerted over what is actually included in the database is 
limited, but that has absolutely nothing specific to do the the OdBL or 
the CC-by-SA 2.0 (it applies just as much to people importing stuff from 
commercial data sources which are compatible with neither etc.).



And yes I would be all for a zero tolerance stance and a tight regime on 
imports, but alas that is somewhat at odds with the touchy-feely nature 
of the project.


Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.02.2012 18:55, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:

Take the example of NearMap TOS, tracing NearMap (specially aided by 
local knowledge) is not something we tend to call an import. 



It is not an import, but it is an incredible special, special case (and 
one that is no longer an issue).


Simon

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Too many things to do before a license change

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.02.2012 22:28, schrieb fk270...@fantasymail.de:

Only six weeks are left before the scheduled license change on April 1st. There 
are still too many open issues:
- checking imports (e.g. h4ck3rm1k3) which is rather an administrative than a 
political issue

That I believe, is work in progress (in the case of h4ck3rm1k3 at least) .

- only 80% of worldwide mappers have agreed so far, despite a tremendous 
mailing effort
"only", well that is a matter of perspective (besides that it is 
actually just over 50%). However in any case there is only a handful of 
mappers left that have significant contributions that haven't responded 
to date, for how the LWG proposes to handle them see the LWG minutes.

- checking invalid e-mails?
- sending paper letters to ~200 non-responding real-name mappers?

Same topic as above.


- enabling self adoption of anonymous edits and second accounts?
Anonymous mappers have always been able to agree to the CTs and have 
actually done so, non-existent problem. Mappers that have issues 
accessing "secondary" accounts should talk to the sys admins (as they 
have been doing up to now).

- How to deal with group accounts like mapping parties or schools with multiple 
authors?
- How to deal with guest and test accounts?
- How to deal with short-time mappers who did not reach the level of database 
protection?
- How to deal with low-quality first-time mappers whose contributions can 
easily be removed?


Their contributions get removed if they don't accept the CTs.


- How to deal with armchair mappers who (are supposed to) have copied from 
official maps?


What does that have to do with the licence change? Nothing. If they are 
kind enough not to accept the CTs their data gets deleted, if they have 
accepted the CTs and you can't revert their edits, you talk to the DWG.

- How to deal with deceased mappers?


If somebody turns up with enough documentation to show that the heirs 
want to leave the data in OSM, I would think we would actually do that.

- How to deal with forks that are ODbL-compatible, e.g. Commonmap?
Any data that is compatible with Commonmap (clearly not a fork btw) 
could potentially be a candidate for OSM with a corresponding OK for our 
attribution via the website. However at least I want -less-, not more 
imports and welcome the offering of Commonmap as a round folder for 
people infected with importmania.


- How to deal with split ways?

See LWG minutes.


- How to replace ways that have been manufactured by decliners or 
non-responders and later modified by active mappers? In some cases, the current 
ownership attribution of split ways is simply fraud.
If somebody has been vandalizing the map, obviously you take the normal 
route for getting it undone.


See it took 5 minutes to deal with all the issues :-)

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes

[Simon Poole]

If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of 
your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other 
developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely  
we would need to see some examples.


Simon

Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn:

Hello,

Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list.

Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as 
incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be 
reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only 
changeset).

This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted.
I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible 
source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace 
the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with 
WMS and traces.
The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database 
objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. 
Let me mention that I removed source only from  nodes and ways that I had 
precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle).

My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that 
would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible?
If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to 
access CC data after the license change?
If not, is there any other way to preserve the data?

Cheers,
rhn

___
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] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes

[Simon Poole]

The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB 
doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the 
attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object.


However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've 
seen from your examples is that you actually imported the data yourself 
and at least some of the original tags have survived. Note that the data 
would actually survive the redaction process at this point in time, but 
naturally you shouldn't have agreed to the CTs in the first place.


The preferred way to proceed would be for you to get permission to 
release the data you imported under the ODBL from the original creator 
in the UMP project, as you probably know there is an effort under way to 
organize exactly that in Poland.


Simon

Am 28.03.2012 22:43, schrieb rhn:

Three different examples; all of them were remapped&  verified in respect to 
location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean the tags have 
changed though, sometimes they were imported just right.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history

Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to?

Cheers,
rhn


If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of
your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other
developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely
we would need to see some examples.

Simon

Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn:

Hello,

Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list.

Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as 
incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be 
reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only 
changeset).

This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted.
I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible 
source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace 
the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with 
WMS and traces.
The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database 
objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. 
Let me mention that I removed source only from  nodes and ways that I had 
precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle).

My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that 
would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible?
If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to 
access CC data after the license change?
If not, is there any other way to preserve the data?

Cheers,
rhn

___
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] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes

[Simon Poole]

Am 29.03.2012 19:16, schrieb rhn:
>  On a side note, relying on such a decision would be ironic - a lot of
data I imported were only a copy of a PD map :) Cheers, rhn

Unluckily that the original source was PD doesn't make a difference
(legally), what counts is the licence you received the data under. 

Just so that things are clear, which account did you use that hasn't
accepted the CTs yet?

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy & změna licence

[Simon Poole]

There is a list of incompatbile changesets here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service/Changeset_Lists#Tainted_Changesets

IMHO the best would be for Pavel to accept, but that naturally depends
on him.

Simon

Am 04.04.2012 11:53, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
> "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I went through Pavel's changesets and I think I've found all the tainted
>> data. Here is what I did:
>>
>> 1) I went through Pavel's changesets (except the big ones already
>> identified as ODbL compatible imports).
>> 2) Counted the number of created or modified nodes that had tags place=*
>> or railway=station,halt,tram_stop. This gave me 17 changesets that have
>> at least 10 such nodes.
>> 3) Then I checked them manually and identified the mass imports.
>>
>> Pavel's tainted changesets incompatible with ODbL+CT:
>> 720911, 720263, 187327, 189654, 188101, 197352, 593595
>>
>> Special case of changeset 473203: contains mostly import of forests, but
>> also 12 place nodes from wikipedia,etc., only 3 of them (27716,
>> 27734, 27739) are still in the database. I would suggest we keep
>> this changeset and remove only those 3 offending nodes when the database
>> comes from read-only mode.
>>
>> In the process I've found another changeset with import of places from
>> wikipedia,geonames,etc. performed by Bilbo. This should be marked for
>> removal as well:
>> 312633
> Hello,
>
> I've deleted the incompatible nodes. Now, I wonder what's going to
> happen next?
>
> Will Pavel accept ODbL+CT in his profile? Or is it no longer possible?
>
> As far as I know there isn't a list of incompatible changesets yet (only
> the other way around - list of compatible changesets of decliners). But
> we need it at least because of the Bilbo's changeset 312633. Where
> should this be directed?
>
> Once Pavel's account is marked ODbL+CT compatible and the new list with
> incompatible changesets (total 8 changesets),
> 720911, 720263, 187327, 189654, 188101, 197352, 593595, 312633,
> is set into place, we no longer need to override Pavel's other bulk
> imports listed on [1].
>
> Best regards,
> Petr Morávek aka Xificurk
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service/Changeset_Lists#Pavel_imports_in_Czech_Republic
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Triggering ShareAlike in Government

[Simon Poole]

In the case of the ODbL this would depend on the ownership and legal
status of the mapping agency (actually it seems as if the ODbL has a
tiny issue in that while parent->owned entity is considered non-public
and ok, the other way around not, something for 1.1). I don't believe 
CC by-SA 2.0 has any such exemption and as I read it, any
"distribution", even non-public, triggers SA. However this would only
start having consequences if the Ministry of the Environment was
actually distributing the data further (if SA was triggered in the case
of the ODbL the derived DB would have to be made available).

IANAL

Simon

Am 18.06.2012 05:59, schrieb Kate Chapman:
> Hi All,
>
> I have a question about what would trigger the ShareAlike in the
> context of government. Let's say for example a National Mapping Agency
> takes the OpenStreetMap road data for their area and then improves
> upon it. Those improvements are shared with the Ministry of the
> Environment. Is that redistribution?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Kate
>
> ___
> 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] [Rebuild] Progress update

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.06.2012 19:35, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
>
> The "huge amount of data" is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of
nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me,

Actually in real life the damage to nodes is substantially less. On the
one hand I don't respect the V0 rule, on the  other hand and more
importantly, 0.53% points (so not quite half of the 1.2%) of the tainted
nodes are from imports, that, should we so wish, could be reimported (on
the case of ABS2006 with better data).
> and the guy behind that is cleverer than me, so I have no reason to doubt it).

Haha.

Simon

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A license bot that has produced too many errors

[Simon Poole]

Am 17.07.2012 13:01, schrieb fk270...@fantasymail.de:
> The detrimental license bot now has reached Germany and promptly left a lot 
> of errors here.
>
> Let's just look at one city, Göttingen in Northern Germany, where I have 
> contacted some undecided users, so I have some knowledge about pre-bot 
> history. 
>
> There are so many errors with severe legal implications,
Ok... lets see:


>  so I would like to publish them on the legal-talk list. Their manipulated 
> history is such a heavy infringement of Creative Commons license that even an 
> agreer could easily sue the OSMF if he was willing to waste time and money on 
> a senseless trial. Let me show the examples:
>
> - agreeing mapper's node disappeared
> http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=60580009

No legal implication.
>
> Version 3 of this node (51.5400973, 9.9564636) was last edited by agreeing 
> user Sasude. By removing this precisely located node, an intersection of four 
> streets was destroyed.
>
> - street has disappeared completely
>
> The southern part of Dahlmannstraße with bus route No. 6 has disappeared 
> completely though it was last edited by agreers.
>
> - intersections were cut off
> - ODbL history ignores agreeing users
> http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=8091768

No legal implication.

>
> Both intersections were cut off though these nodes were last edited by an 
> agreer.
> Undediced mapper Hotte Degoe has created an empty line without any tags. All 
> tags were added by agreeing users, all points have been moved by agreeing 
> users as well.
> Only v1 should be hidden, all other versions by agreeing mappers should be 
> visible.
No legal implication.
> - decliner included in ODbL history
> http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=60922724
>
> Lobelt has declined the new contributor terms so far mainly for political 
> reasons, but he still appears in the "clean" ODbL history because he has 
> removed a senseless tag. Removing a tag does not constitute a copyright, but 
> mentioning him in the history is an infringement of moral rights.
> v2 should be hidden.
Why would -mentioning- him be an infringement of moral rights, if at all
it would be the other way around. No legal implication.
> - OSMF Redaction Account claims to be the only author
> http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=8573909
>
> Since the OSMF Redaction Account did not create any way, he cannot pretend to 
> be the author of any way. This pretense is illegal according to Creative 
> Commons and rude though legal according to new ODbL license.
> At least some human users should appear in the history.
>
> - ODbL history ignores too many agreeing users (2nd example)
> http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=8094092
> Undediced mapper Hotte Degoe has created an empty line without any tags. All 
> tags were added by agreeing users, all points have been moved by agreeing 
> users as well.
> Only v1 should be hidden, all other versions by agreeing mappers should be 
> visible.

Currently edits by agreeing users that would expose material by a
non-agreeing user are not displayed by the API/GUI. All users that have
agreed to the CTs have agreed to "bulk" attribution, no material from
non-agreeing users has been used (exception trivial edits that are
attributed as you note). No legal implication.
>
> These seven examples are quite simple cases without any complications. I am 
> sure that some of you will be able to find many more examples where the bot 
> has made severe errors.

Well up to now you have not found a single case with an "error"..

Simon




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US

[Simon Poole]

I personally can't see enough wiggle room both in the ODbL and the CTs
to make any dataset generated by geocoding and/or reverse geocoding
anything else than a derivative database. It is just the ODbL working as
intended. We went through a lot of effort to get from a broken to a
functional licence that is appropriate for the subject matter and we
shouldn't be unhappy with the fact that our licence now works (even
though I like many others, would have preferred a more liberal licence).

We don't have any exact information on the position of the community,
but I would suspect that we have substantial support for strong share a
like provisions and that getting a 2/3 majority for relaxed terms would
be big challenge (I would like to remind everybody that we lost a number
of quite large mappers during the licence change process due to the ODbL
being a sell out to commercial interests and not SA enough).

The only way out that I could see to avoid "infection" of propriety
information is, along the lines of the suggestion by the LWG, to only
geocode address information and use the address information as a key to
look up such propriety information on the fly, the address DB itself
being subject to ODbL terms. This however wouldn't help in the reverse
geocoding use case (example: user clicks on a map to locate a bar and we
return an address, the dataset of such addresses and any associated
information would probably always be "tainted").

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

[Simon Poole]

Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
>
> 1. I used OSM as the basemap for my map of refugee camps, the camp
> data is my organizations and licensed CC BY-NC. The data for OSM and
> the camp data is never combined. I release my map under CC-BY-NC. I
> believe this is okay.
All IMHO naturally.

This would be a typical produced work which leaves you are lot of leeway
wrt your distribution licence.

> 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use
> OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of
> the incompatibility of the two licenses.
> 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the
> schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the
> data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because
> of the incompatibility of licenses.

With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial
extract
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline)
your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts
would normally be considered derivative databases and would require
release of the underlying data with the ODbL.

In both cases you are naturally free to simply produce such results on
the fly. My reading of the ODbL would seem to indicate that if you for
example geocoding on the fly you may not even have to provide an
indication from where you results were derived.

Simon




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

[Simon Poole]

Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth:
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
>>> 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use
>>> OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of
>>> the incompatibility of the two licenses.
>>> 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the
>>> schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the
>>> data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because
>>> of the incompatibility of licenses.
>> With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial
>> extract
>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline)
>> your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts
>> would normally be considered derivative databases and would require
>> release of the underlying data with the ODbL.
> The insubstantial guidelines are way too strict (less than 100 features(!)). 

As you say we have had this discussion before. The insubstantial
guideline is there to determine what  trivial, inconsequential usage of
the data is. On the one hand I suspect that if we (though some kind of
consultation process) raise the numbers, it is never going to be enough
(10'000, 10'000'000?). On the other hand raising the number at one point
essentially creates a new (CC0) licence. We have both a ethical
fiduciary duty to respect the wishes of the part of the community that
wants strong share a like (there are reasons to believe that this is
large group) and a contractual one (contributor terms) to follow due
process for a licence change.

It would not be out of the question to add a specific "geo-coding"
licence or terms to the canon of licences that the OSMF is allowed to
distribute the data with, but as you realize that is a major undertaking
and up to now nobody has stepped forward  and taken ownership of the issue.

Simon





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Simon Poole]

Phone currently.

Am 18.01.2013 20:04, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2013/1/18 Michael Collinson :
>> The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
>> Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.
>
> are you meeting on IRC or is this a telephone conference?
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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 question, user clicking on map

[Simon Poole]

The use of the term "Database" in an intellectual property context has
essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The
statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading.

I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time
it came up.  I'm still waiting for a concrete (geocoding) use case which
we would reasonably want to allow without triggering share-a-like.

Simon

 
Am 28.02.2013 05:54, schrieb Jake Wasserman:
> Alex,
> I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely
> storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
> alike.  But on the use cases wiki page
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
> 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
> together in the same "database" software, whether that is a RDBMS,
> NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
> derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
> Derivative Database.'  In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
> together does not trigger share alike.
>
> Just trying to get some clarification.
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Alex Barth  > wrote:
>
> Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the
> same database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using
> the OSM tiles on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web
> site is affected. I recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear
> that way http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
>
> (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that
> complicated, but that's another story).
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob  > wrote:
>
> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.
>
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
> that is
> > trivially disprovable.
>
> Where is the line in the sand?
>
> For example I have a website which is driven by several
> databases whichinclude everything from website members info t
>
> I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive
> map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement /
> inclusion, routing, etc...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> wrote:
>
> > WhereAmI wrote:
> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
> >> data is used.
> >
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
> that is
> > trivially disprovable.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
> > Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > ___
> > 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

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik:
> How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is
> licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD
> Produced Work to credit OSM?
> Sincerely,
>
This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3
(http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/).

It is true that the OBbL does not prescribe a specific licence for
produced works, however it -does- require the conditions in 4.3 to be
adhered to.

Simon


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
> On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
>>> engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not
>>> worried
>>> about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case,
>> Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is
>> 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you
>> export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not
>> readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full
>> database under a new license...
>
> That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a
> vector-format image might count as conveying a database. I think it's
> ambiguous.
>
> The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing
> can never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified
> in a future version, IMO.
>
There is legal precedent that a map can be both an image (on paper) and
a database (don't forget that we are not discussing databases in a
technical sense). In the end if something like this went to court it is
likely that it would be judged on the intent, not on technicalities.

Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova

[Simon Poole]

Bekim

The basic issue is likely to be that we never received permission to
distribute the original imported data with the ODbL implying that the
date had to be removed prior to the licence change. The redaction
process was designed to preserve as much work as possible is such
situations, but for example if the original data had road names those
will have not survived the redaction.

The consequences of not agreeing to the CTs and/or not getting
permission for continuing distribution of imported data were very clear
to the relevant contributors and their failure to do so is something you
should take up with them.

Simon

 
Am 04.03.2013 15:31, schrieb Bekim Kajtazi:
> Hello Michael,
>
> Just to let you know that I never heard back from anyone on the issue
> of the road data for Kosovo.
> I am not sure how things work, but I was very unhappy that all that
> data was removed after hundreds of work hours made by many volunteers
> in Kosova to update the original dataset which was coming from a dated
> source. Now I see the maps has a lost of new roads but the old dataset
> is not incorporated, so not sure if anything can be done at all if
> there's a possibility to combine something.
>
> Any advise, recommendation would be welcome.
>
> Best,
> Bekim
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Michael Collinson  > wrote:
>
> Hi Bekim,
>
> If nobody else gives you feedback I will do so next week. I am
> away at the moment.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Collinson
>
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:11, Bekim Kajtazi  > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mike,
>>
>> Hopefully someone will send some feedback.
>>
>> Best,
>> Bekim
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Mike Dupont
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> I dont understand that myself, it seems a bit fuzzy to me but
>> this is
>> the right mailing list and I hope you will get some feedback,
>> thanks
>> mike
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Bekim Kajtazi
>> mailto:bekim.kajt...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > Ok but I don't know how to go about and do that! That's my
>> problem.
>> > Where is the starting point?
>> >
>> > I am ready to approve, sign, confirm anything required!
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Bekim
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Mike Dupont
>> > > > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bekim,
>> >> I have been working on understanding the new license even
>> today.
>> >> it is cc-by-sa + database rights (odbl) + the right for
>> osm to change
>> >> the licence at will in the future.
>> >>
>> >> basically you need to grant the osm the rights to use the
>> data,
>> >> Michael can give you more info about this,
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >>
>> >> mike
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Bekim Kajtazi
>> mailto:bekim.kajt...@gmail.com>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Gent's,
>> >> >
>> >> > Some days ago  I noticed that all those detailed roads
>> that were on OSM
>> >> > in
>> >> > Kosova were removed.
>> >> > Does anyone have any information, like when? why? were
>> removed.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am about to contact OSM and any assistance and
>> additional information
>> >> > is
>> >> > welcome!
>> >> >
>> >> > Best,
>> >> > Bekim
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > about.me/bekim 
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to
>> the Google
>> >> > Groups
>> >> > "GIS Kosova" group.
>> >> > To post to this group, send email to
>> gis-kos...@googlegroups.com .
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >> > gis-kosova+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> >> > For more options, visit this group at
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/gis-kosova?hl=en.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> James Michael DuPont
>> >> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova
>> http://flossk.org
>> >> Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
>> >> http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
>> >> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world
>> http://fosm.org
>> >> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > about.me/bekim 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.03.2013 17:20, schrieb Bekim Kajtazi:
>
>
> To help understand better, this is how data got into OSM:
> I digitized the data from topo maps
> Shared the SHP File with FLOSSK in Prishtina
> FLOSSK recruited many volunteers to get the data in OSM
> Few months later data was removed from OSM
>
> Anyway, unless there is a way to get some of that data back into the
> map, then I don't see any benefit of continuing this conversation.
>
Assuming a) the topo maps are a legit source (out of copyright or
explicit permission) and b) you still have the SHP files, sure it is
still possible (and if it is just by providing the files as an overlay
which is preferable to an import anyway).

>From the mails it would seem as if you do not actually have an OSM
account or at least you were not involved with the importing yourself,
then I can only point back to the importers. They would have had it in
their hands to document the import properly, provide support during the
licence change if explicit permission for further use was necessary and
so on.

Simon
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

[Simon Poole]

Hi Paul

Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission from HGK (with
a pointer that the data is freely available elsewhere and that removing
it would add up to deleting and re-adding exactly the same data)? Having
such permission would seem to be the best solution right now.

2nd question why would somebody re add the HGK data if the same data is
available from a different agency? Potentially the solution would be to
redact and add the OK data at the same time.

Simon

Am 29.04.2013 05:31, schrieb Paul Norman:
> A user in Turkey brought in about 30k place nodes (or mountain peak nodes)
> from HGK, a Turkish government agency.
>
> HGK prohibits actions besides personal use[1] and this is clearly
> incompatible with the ODbL. As I indicated, this means they need to be
> removed,[2] which in technical terms means redacting them. Identifying the
> material to be redacted will not be easy.
>
> A couple of people have indicated that there may be other sources available
> which have village locations. Unfortunately, this does not change the status
> of the HGK data. It is an odd situation where the data is not available
> under an open license from one agency, but the exact same data is openly
> licensed from another agency. 
>
> == Questions ==
>
> LWG: My understanding is we need permission or a suitable license from the
> data source and that finding an alternate source would only allow us to
> bring in the new data, not keep the old data. Is this correct?
>
> LWG+DWG: If someone re-uploads the HGK data because they disagree with the
> redaction, they will of intentionally and knowingly uploaded copyrighted
> material without permission or a license. Does the DMCA oblige us to do
> something about this? If they do this, should we do something even if we
> aren't required to under the DMCA?
>   
> [1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-tr/2013-April/000291.html
> as well as a Bing translation of their FAQ
>
> [2]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-tr/2013-April/000293.html
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:15 PM
> To: 'Suha Ulgen'
> Cc: 'OSM Mikel Maron'; 'Schuyler Erle'; 'Mikel Maron'; 'Kate Chapman'
> Subject: RE: OSM place name data from Turkey
>
>> From: Suha Ulgen [mailto:m...@suhaulgen.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:56 PM
>> Subject: OSM place name data from Turkey
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> The Turkish OSM community is very distressed about your recent 
>> unilateral action. Apparently you are erasing the place names in the 
>> Turkish dataset stating that the source data which you identify as 
>> belonging to the Turkish General Command for Mapping (Harita Genel 
>> Komutanligi - HGK) is not ODbL-compatible.
> This issue was raised on the talk-tr@ mailing list. The conclusion, as you
> mentioned, was that the HGK data was not ODbL compatible. Not being ODbL
> compatible, we cannot distribute it. 
>
>> The counter argument is that Turkish gazetteer data has been submitted 
>> by HGK to the UN Group of Experts on Geographic Names (UNGEGN) and is 
>> therefore in the "public domain".
> The list raised the possibility that there might be an alternate source of
> Turkish place names. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the status of the
> HGK sourced material, which has explicit restrictions against distribution.
>
> Do you anticipate getting permission from *HGK* to distribute their data?
>
>> Please STOP "redacting" the Turkish place names. I'll talk to the 
>> UNGEGN Secretariat tomorrow and revert ASAP.
> It should not be technically possible to use the normal revert tools on a
> redaction. In any case, do not reintroduce the data downloaded from HGK that
> we do not have permission to redistribute.
>
>
> ___
> 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] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

[Simon Poole]

Am 29.04.2013 10:18, schrieb Paul Norman:
>> From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:58 PM
>> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey
>>
>> Hi Paul
>>
>> Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission from HGK (with
>> a pointer that the data is freely available elsewhere and that removing
>> it would add up to deleting and re-adding exactly the same data)? Having
>> such permission would seem to be the best solution right now.
> People have tried contacting other agencies, but to the best of my
> knowledge, no one has had any success with HGK.
>
> To be clear, it's not the UN who needs to be contacted to get permission,
> it's HGK.

Yes, I read the thread on the mailing list and it doesn't seem as if
there is actually a 1-to-1 replacement for the data from any other
place, so that part of the discussion seems to be moot.

>
>> 2nd question why would somebody re add the HGK data if the same data is
>> available from a different agency? Potentially the solution would be to
>> redact and add the OK data at the same time.
> We don't have the technical means to do anything but a redaction through the
> bot, and I don't see us developing it.
>
> How about this. My understanding of the workflow of the user is that they
> took the HGK data (names, object type and location) and then moved it to
> agree with imagery, then uploaded, creating v1 of the nodes.
>
> The names obviously have to go, but if they've verified the object type and
> location against imagery, could we keep that?

I don't see a reason why not, the LWG has taken the position in the past
that the IP is not tied to the OSM object in question, so for example
moving an object substantially would clearly not just technically
overwrite any IP in the original coordinates. However in the current
case I doubt that there is actually something useful for OSM left once
the names are gone.

Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

[Simon Poole]

Am 29.04.2013 11:14, schrieb Henning Scholland:
> Am 29.04.2013 10:42, schrieb Simon Poole:
>> However in the current
>> case I doubt that there is actually something useful for OSM left once
>> the names are gone.
> If the information "There is a village" stays in OSM, it would be
> useful at all. If you are travelling through Turkey, it's good to
> know, where the next village is. In most cases you find there a little
> store or at least you find there people, that can help you.
>
> I think if a place-node was moved, then at least the place=*is
> verified by another source and could stay in OSM with the new
> coordinates.
>
>
I would agree that there is some value in having "naked" place nodes.
However considering that at best we are talking about 2-3k such nodes
surviving it is a question if doing an  imagery based "add a place"
drive or similar for Turkey after the redaction wouldn't be more efficient.

Simon
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

[Simon Poole]

Paul

I was basing my thoughts on this statement

> There a total of 31k objects, of which 28k are version 1.

"Version 1" would seem to imply not moved, or am I mixing something up?

Simon
/
/
Am 29.04.2013 11:40, schrieb Paul Norman:
>
> Clarification on numbers:
>
>  
>
> Assuming every node has been moved, we'd be talking about 26k place or
> mountain peak nodes I can definitely keep, about 3k I can restore from
> the existing redactions, and about 3k that I'm not sure about.
>
>  
>
> Now, it's entirely possible a bunch of nodes haven't been moved from
> the HGK positions, in which case they'd be completely removed. I won't
> know that until I go ahead with the SQL to identify the nodes.
>
>  
>
> *From:*Henning Scholland [mailto:o...@aighes.de]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2013 2:31 AM
> *To:* Licensing and other legal discussions.
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey
>
>  
>
> Am 29.04.2013 11:27, schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>  
>
> I would agree that there is some value in having "naked" place
> nodes. However considering that at best we are talking about 2-3k
> such nodes surviving it is a question if doing an  imagery based
> "add a place" drive or similar for Turkey after the redaction
> wouldn't be more efficient.
>
> Simon
>
> Yes, maybe this would be a better solution.
>
> Henning
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] "Information for officials and diplomats of countries and entities with disputed territories"

[Simon Poole]

Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite
yes from me. There is a "term" in singular that should be plural I
believe. But otherwise completely ok with me.

Simon

Am 09.07.2013 20:38, schrieb Michael Collinson:
> Simon,
>
> Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over the document and
> are happy to now send it to the board as our formal proposal. However,
> as Chair I would really prefer a formal quorate, 4, for such things
> and ask you to indicate yes or no by email before I send it.
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/1uQ0hpkFxqdNf7aPMk_5PaHFZojxULMcWXxLJRbYq4oE/edit
>
> The draft is of the last meeting + your changes + we went through and
> considered and clarified what each "OpenStreetMap" meant.  As an
> interesting aside, it defines "OpenStreetMap" without qualification to
> be the database itself rather than any human entity ... may be a
> useful legal construct in the future.
>
> I also intend forwarding it to the Japanese community since treatment
> of disputed-island naming is an issue there as it ties the hands of
> the national mapping agency on how cooperative they can be with us. If
> I get any substantial feedback, I will forward to board.
>
> Mike

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "Information for officials and diplomats of countries and entities with disputed territories"

[Simon Poole]

It seems as if we inadvertently CC's this to the public legal-talk list
and not to the LWG one.

Apologies to all.

Simon

Am 09.07.2013 21:56, schrieb Simon Poole:
> Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite
> yes from me. There is a "term" in singular that should be plural I
> believe. But otherwise completely ok with me.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 09.07.2013 20:38, schrieb Michael Collinson:
>> Simon,
>>
>> Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over the document and
>> are happy to now send it to the board as our formal proposal.
>> However, as Chair I would really prefer a formal quorate, 4, for such
>> things and ask you to indicate yes or no by email before I send it.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/1uQ0hpkFxqdNf7aPMk_5PaHFZojxULMcWXxLJRbYq4oE/edit
>>
>> The draft is of the last meeting + your changes + we went through and
>> considered and clarified what each "OpenStreetMap" meant.  As an
>> interesting aside, it defines "OpenStreetMap" without qualification
>> to be the database itself rather than any human entity ... may be a
>> useful legal construct in the future.
>>
>> I also intend forwarding it to the Japanese community since treatment
>> of disputed-island naming is an issue there as it ties the hands of
>> the national mapping agency on how cooperative they can be with us.
>> If I get any substantial feedback, I will forward to board.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Which legislation applies: server or data location?

[Simon Poole]

Ian has already given a good answer. So just a couple of further notes:

- we want our data to be useful and usable in as many countries as
possible, there are some areas where that is very difficult to achieve,
however this is in general not intellectual property law related

- the history of the Internet is littered with failures that started off
by thinking they could get around copyright law by going offshore

- courts all over the world have found that services provided over the
Internet which are in the least targeted towards the local populace fall
under national jurisdiction (for example in the case of OSM anything we
provide would clearly be considered as being provided locally in
Germany, or France, just to give two examples). This also leads to the
situation that a potential issue will probably end up in the courts of a
country that has the most favourable environment for whoever has a bone
to pick with us

- while we are not directly responsible for the well being of third
parties that build services and products based on OSM data, we need to
take in to account that they may be directly affected by problematic data

Simon
 
Am 27.08.2013 04:04, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Amidst hard questions in the Brazilian community, I've been wondering
> which copyright legislation should apply to OpenStreetMap's data (in
> the case of suspicious data imports): that of where the data is stored
> and provided from (seems to be from the UK right now) or that of where
> the data refers to? Or both? Or some other international law?
>



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location?

[Simon Poole]

It would be interesting to know what kind of information is contained in
TrackSource, I could imagine a potential way forward based on the ago
old adage (well it is a couple of seconds old :-)):

geometry is cheap, meta expensive

If there is meta data (street names, other similar information) present
in TrackSource that has actually been surveyed and not copied from
somewhere, this could potentially be used together with our usual
complement of addicted arm chair mappers tracing geometry from aerial
imagery (which man need to be acquired in one form or another).

Simon


Am 28.08.2013 01:31, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> Well, in this particular case, it is a bit complicated. Some of the
> data (though we can't tell which part of it) might have been traced
> over Google imagery, and Brazilian law might be more lenient as was
> the case of several US court cases
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Maps). I
> fear that delving into subtle legal interpretations here doesn't help
> us anyway since it would be illegal in the UK to provide any data
> derived from Google's services, regardless of the location the data
> refers to.
>
> Brazil already has another "open" maps project called TrackSource
> (released under a CC-BY-SA license) and some people in that project
> have shown interest in contributing to OSM their own data, which was
> collected and refined over almost a decade. We know that we can't take
> the official "released" maps, but the contributors (which own their
> own data) are willing to upload their unlicensed data. That would be
> legal except for the fact that their community actively encouraged
> tracing using Google Earth (there are several records of that on the
> Internet). A considerable part of that data, however, was also mixed
> with personally collected tracklogs, some of it using very advanced
> survey techniques, but it is impossible to tell which data elements
> came from which source using their (rudimentary?) tools and database
> formats. In other words, they've never really worried about these
> licensing issues.
>
> Even though we are telling them to contribute only the data they are
> sure to be unrelated to Google, we're simply not sure if they are
> following our advice. Some have already started thinking of ways to
> automatically detect imports from TrackSource maps and report the
> changesets to OSMF for a mass reversal. Meanwhile I'm trying to
> prevent the TrackSource folks from losing interest in OSM.
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>> From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data
>>> location?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian has already given a good answer. So just a couple of further notes:
>> Some more notes, from a slightly different perspective
>>
>> - The UK has as strong or stronger IP protection for map data than other
>> countries, rendering the question moot most of the time.
>>
>> - As this question originated with an import, any such questions *should* be
>> raised in the import proposal. My guess is that the DWG would tell the user
>> to not import until they get clearance from the LWG.
>>
>> - What OSM does is flat out illegal in some places (North Korea being the
>> typical example, but not the only one). I don't think anyone is particularly
>> concerned, although contributors in such countries may be. Similarly,
>> distributing non-official boundaries may be a problem, and it's impossible
>> to satisfy countries on both sides of some boundaries at the same time.
>>
>> - When dealing with government data, the concerns have mainly been if it is
>> legal in that country. Local governments near me will not license database
>> rights because no such concept exists to them.
>>
>> I had more, but paused and forgot it.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed

[Simon Poole]

Mikel

I believe there is a simple solution, please document the source with
the full text of the licence or with a statement by the lawyer in
question, since the later is unlikely to forthcoming (we probably
wouldn't do that either), its going to be the former.  I find it quite
understandable that their is some uneasiness about agreeing adhere to a
licence that we can't actually read.

Simon


Am 29.08.2013 15:16, schrieb Mikel Maron:
> Stephen
>
> > What happens if they suddenly decide 
> > that this use is not covered as it's neither humanitarian nor 
> > non-commercial?
>  
> The areas when NextView imagery is made available to HOT/OSM are
> clearly humanitarian need driven. NextView is a USG license and the
> interpretation is by their lawyers. Their is clear and full
> understanding by USG that data digitized into OSM is made available
> under the ODbL, which allows commercial use. There is not an issue here.
>
> > So if it's not possible to add anything to the NextView license: Can we 
> > have a letter from them confirming they fully understand what will 
> > happen with the data in OSM and they still consider it being OK and 
> > covered by their license?
>
> This is stated on their website
> at https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx (Description tab).
>
> If this is still not clear to you Stephen, please contact me directly
> on Skype (mikelmaron) and I will clear up any confusion.
>
> -Mikel
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
> 
> *From:* Stephan Knauss 
> *To:* Kate Chapman ; Licensing and other legal
> discussions. 
> *Cc:* OSMF License Working Group ; hot
> 
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:27 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license
> clarification needed
>
> Hello Kate,
>
> On 29.08.2013 02:24, Kate Chapman wrote:
> >> For OSM to be on the safe side: Would it be possible to
> document the
> >> permissions you have for tracing in a clearly understandable
> way in the
> >> wiki? The current license text leaves a bit of uncertainty what
> a derived
> >> imagery product is.
> >
> > I can document in the wiki my understanding of it. The legal
> > interpretation of the US government by their own lawyers that the
> > initial use of the derived vectors need to be for humanitarian use,
> > after that it is fine to remain under the ODbL license in OSM. The
> > reason for this is the US Government-wide license for commercial
> > satellite imagery is not supposed to cut into potential commercial
> > sales of that imagery. So it would not be possible to release that
> > imagery for what would be initially a commercial use.
> >
> >>
> >> So why not simply add a clause saying "Imagery is used by the
> members of the
> >> HOT for providing humanitarian aid as expressed in our policy.
> Derived data
> >> will be stored in the Openstretmap database in accordance with the
> >> contributor terms and is available under the ODbL also after
> end of the
> >> humanitarian project".
> >
> > The NextView license is the US Government-wide license utilized for
> > commercial satellite imagery. It is not going to be possible to
> add a
> > clause to it.
>
> I appreciate your work for HOT and like the idea that OSM data is
> used
> to really improve the situation of people.
>
> However, reading this it sounds to me we (as OSM) fully rely on the
> legal interpretation of USG lawyers of what use of derived vectors is
> allowed.
>
> What happens if a year after providing the imagery they realize that
> there are companies selling processed data based on OSM and this
> data is
> based on imagery released for HOT. What happens if they suddenly
> decide
> that this use is not covered as it's neither humanitarian nor
> non-commercial?
> Would we have to revert large scale of date and all additions
> built on
> top of it?
>
> I'm much in favor of having the data donor fully understand of
> what are
> the consequences of their donation. So they can agree to that and not
> feel tricked into something later. And the OSM community can build
> their
> improvements on a solid foundation.
>
> So if it's not possible to add anything to the NextView license:
> Can we
> have a letter from them confirming they fully understand what will
> happen with the data in OSM and they still consider it being OK and
> covered by their license? Should be not problem at all if they
> understood it in the beginning...
>
> If they have issues about handing out a letter confirming
> commercial use
> of OSM data derived from their imagery being fine then we can't
> accept
> their imagery either.
>
> I understand that you probably interpret the l

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki Mapia Mass Upload

[Simon Poole]

We would really need

a) some proof of this actually happening
b) a pointer to who is doing it (if confirmed)

Simon

Am 15.09.2013 12:12, schrieb Christoph (TheFive@OSM):
> Hi,
>
> in forum question and answers we received a Tip (from an external) of
> mass upload of openstreetmap data to wikimapia.
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22578.
>
> i try to route this tip to the right discussion place.
>
> The tip is not checked by an OSMler yet, as far as i know.
>
> Christoph 
>
>
> ___
> 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] New contributing agency

[Simon Poole]

Hi Fernando

I gather from your questions that they are currently not distributing
the data under a (well-)known licence or on any other documented terms?

In any case before spending to much effort on trying to nail down the
legal side, you really need to clarify if this is suitable data for OSM
and if yes, if there is a process that will result in something that is
digestible by the Brazilian community. So I would strongly suggest at
least starting with the steps outlined in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines 

As to being mentioned on http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright , there
is no written in stone policy who gets on that page, in the past it
seems to have been used as an extra bargaining chip in negotiation.
Being listed there does not in any way indicate that the contributions
are or were more important than contributions from the individuals and
organisations listed here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors . Clearly there is a
practical desire to keep the list on the copyright page as short as
possible. Down the road we may have better mechanisms to build the
attribution pages and then that may change. So for now it would depend
on the outcome of any necessary negotiations.

Simon




Am 14.11.2013 18:58, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've recently contacted an institute (LABGEO) within a public
> university here in Brazil (UFRGS) and they've shown interest in
> contributing to OSM their data, which includes roads, land contours,
> vegetation data, maybe even geological data (it is a pretty extensive
> database). They would also like to be listed as a contributor here in
> this page: http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
>
> Though there may be a few details left to check yet, they've stated so
> far that the dada is already regularly used for commercial purposes by
> many Brazilian companies at zero cost. So here's my question: what
> kind of statement do they have to provide so that they get listed in
> that page? What questions does the statement need to answer?
>
> -- 
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409 
>
> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)
>
>
> ___
> 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] New contributing agency

[Simon Poole]

(IMHO naturally) From a content pov, an agreement or a statement from a
contributing agency should be based roughly on the terms laid down in
the contributor terms
(http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms).   They
should mainly grant the OSMF the rights listed in (2) and it would be
nice if they would make a statement to the fact that they actually own
the necessary rights in the data to do so.

Simon
 
Am 20.11.2013 20:28, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> It's a very similar situation indeed, Jaakko. Here such forms would
> take years to get processed sometimes, it all depends on the good will
> of who receives the request. I've noticed that this "will" is more
> responsive when the person knows how to answer, or at least knows who
> to delegate the request to (specially if this person is not a very
> specialized busy top manager), so simple and easy questions are more
> effective at getting a clear answer faster.
>
> Wish you luck as well!
>
> Fernando
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
> mailto:jaa...@helleranta.com>> wrote:
>
> Same situation in Nicaragua. Many here say: Oh, it's all public
> domain! .. where they merely mean, We have it and can give it to
> you. Or: It's online and no one will protest (immediately at
> least) if you put it in OSM.
>
> The written permission (for which there are existing forms) is
> critical -- and I'm afraid that you'll likely not get that...
>
> Wishing you all the best, of course.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jaakko 
>
> --
> jaa...@helleranta.com <mailto:jaa...@helleranta.com> * Skype:
> jhelleranta * Mobile: +505-8845-3391 (Nicaragua) * Voice(mail) /
> SMS / What's app: +1-202-730-9778 
> * http://about.me/jaakkoh
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Fernando Trebien
> mailto:fernando.treb...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Simon. You are correct, the LABGEO cartographers I
> have talked to don't seem to have access to any formal
> statement (contracts, laws, etc.) that ensures the data is
> truly "public domain" as they say. It is also possible that
> existing written statements would not clearly answer essential
> questions concerning ODbL compatibility. Considering some
> other problems (such as uninformed and uninterested Brazilian
> authorities, and lack of court decisions that would help us
> interpret the law), I believe that getting them to write down
> exactly what we need them to agree with would be safer for us
> and also more productive for us and for them.
>
> Since these authorities often erroneously equate "public
> domain" with "free" or "open" (not even knowing the
> differences between the two), I believe the questions for them
> should be:
> - how they expect their attribution to be visible to end users
> through OSM; and
> - whether the data can be used for commercial purposes.
>
> I don't know if these questions are enough, so I would like to
> hear your opinions and suggestions.
>
> Finally, we have already studied the data and found the
> conversion rather easy to do. Importing would probably require
> some coordinated effort, but for now it is the legal aspect
> that completely prevents us from beginning. Also, I think it
> would be fairer if the copyright page included a linked to the
> wiki page you mentioned, so that all contributors enjoy some
> similar level of visibility.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fernando
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Simon Poole  <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Fernando
>
> I gather from your questions that they are currently not
> distributing the data under a (well-)known licence or on
> any other documented terms?
>
> In any case before spending to much effort on trying to
> nail down the legal side, you really need to clarify if
> this is suitable data for OSM and if yes, if there is a
> process that will result in something that is digestible
> by the Brazilian community. So I would strongly suggest at
> least starting with the steps outlined in
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines 
>
> As to being mentioned on
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright , there is no
> written i