Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Jukka Rahkonen  wrote:

>
> Have you noticed that there are already quite many Australian datasets
> including Victorian Government data listed here:
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Contributor_specific_attribution_and_disclaimer
>
>
Thanks, Jukka.  I suspect that "permission" isn't actually valid, as it
seems to extend from data.gov.au (Federal government) but most of the
datasets there are state or territory (eg, the VicMap Rivers dataset), and
are published on the relevant state/territory data portals (data.vic.gov.au,
data.act.gov.au) etc.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

Wow, great responses everyone - much appreciated.

Simon Poole:
>Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
they currently using?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

You can see this for instance at:
https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/vicmap-hydro-connector-watercourse

Richard Fairhurst:
>In which case they've chosen the wrong licence.
>If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence
>(CC-BY), then you are automatically giving permission for it to be
>relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-only licence (CC-BY-SA). You
>can't license under CC-BY and say "no-one may incorporate this data into a
>dataset with share-alike restrictions". That would defeat the point of a

Thanks for confirming that. I was a bit confused by the term in the CC-BY
deed:

>You may not apply legal terms or technological measures
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/#> that legally restrict
others from doing anything the license permits.

Which could be interpreted to mean you can't apply CC-BY-SA which
"restricts others" from using the data and not sharing it, which "the
license" (CC-BY) "permits". But CC's wiki explicitly says this is ok:

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_use.3F

>When creating an adaptation of material under the license identified in
the lefthand column [BY], you may license your contributions to the
adaptation under one of the licenses indicated on the top row [BY-SA] if
the corresponding box is green [it is].

Richard again:
>Where "etc." means "TomTom". There are only four worldwide geodata providers.
It's hardly a slippery slope of individual permissions.

Good point. Although hypothetically there could be non-worldwide providers.


Andrew Turner:
>So a simpler route here would be to suggest "upgrading" to use CC-By 4.0?

Getting DELWP (and most likely the rest of the Victorian government) to
switch to CC-BY 4.0, let alone CC-0, would be a huge task that would
probably involve all kinds of bureaucracy, working groups, etc etc.

Richard Best:
[a long, very helpful email currently stuck in moderation]
>Perhaps helpfully, there is a New Zealand Government precedent for the
situation you're facing here. Land Information New Zealand licenses a wide
range of geospatial data under CC-BY licences. However, it has also allowed
data to be made available on OSM under the ODbL. See here for details:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ

>I suggest you draw the Victorian State Government's attention to the
approach taken by Land Information in New Zealand, with a view to asking
the Victorian State Government to take the same approach. I completely
understand their position of not wanting to "get into creating one-off
variations for every potential user with a preference" but I think it's
important to appreciate that we're talking here about a global project
which has decided on the ODbL, that it would be extremely difficult to
change the current regime to another one and that there is no real downside
to the Victorian State Government dual-licensing its data, once under CC-BY
and separately under the ODbL (or, actually, allowing OSMF to license under
the ODbL). It's perfectly entitled to do that and people who want to use
the data directly from the Victorian State Government's site under CC-BY
can always do so. Most significantly, dual-licensing under CC-BY (via a
government site) and the ODbL (via OSM) allows the data to be used in a
wider range of contexts and for it to be mashed up with other rich datasets
already in OSM or that may be added to OSM in the future. Allowing this
could result in cultural, environmental, economic or social benefits for
Australians. This is all entirely consistent with the rationale for open
licensing in the first place.

Wow. Hard to believe that New Zealand open licensed their data 7 years ago.
Maybe this will be the precedent we need. That's really an excellent,
well-worded summary. Would it be alright with you if I CC'ed you in my next
response to them (which they have asked to be directed to *their* legal
team...)?

Steve



On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:

>
> Hi Steve
>
> Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
> they currently using?
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> Am 30.08.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Steve Bennett:
>
> Hi all,
>   I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria (southeast
> Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported into OSM. It's
> currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in principle for it to
> be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making the recommended
> statement 

[OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

Hi all,
  I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria (southeast
Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported into OSM. It's
currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in principle for it to
be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making the recommended
statement DELWP has no objections to geodata derived in part from Vicmap,
either traced from Vicmap map products, or directly from spatial extracts,
being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata database and
released under a free and open license.

Specifically, they don't think ODbL is as free and open as CC-BY, and
they don't particularly want to make a one-off statement for OSM.

The only other requirement is not to apply legal terms or technological
measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license
permits. If the ODbL is more restrictive than our CC by Attribution this
presents a problem for OSM, not for us. My initial response is that we
wouldn't want OSM to apply a more restrictive license than ours, and in
respect of the statement Steve wants us to provide, DELWP doesn't want to
get into creating one-off variations for every potential user with a
preference - Google, HERE, etc.
...

We believe the CC by Attribution appropriate to sufficiently and equitably
provide our data to all/anyone, and if Steve is concerned he should take it
up with OSM. I'll refer it to Legal (not ours, DataVic's) if he wants to
pursue it further.


It's all getting quite subtle and possibly out of my depth. I'm not sure if
the concern is a misunderstanding about the implications of dual licensing,
a philosophical objection to free licences that impose share-alike
restrictions like ODbL, or something different.

I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be able
to get involved in the discussion.

Thanks very much,
Steve
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

Huh. Really? Did I completely misunderstand this?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission

My understanding was that when you import data into OSM, you assign special
permission to the OSMF to re-license the data under ODbL, so you need more
than just CC-BY licensing to begin with. Did something change, or have I
just been mistaken for a long time?

Steve

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:


 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
 wrote:

 Hello Steve,

 On 30.08.2015 17:14, Steve Bennett wrote:

 I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
 able to get involved in the discussion.


 I'm no such expert, but they just require attribution. Did they state any
 specific way of doing so? If not, then maybe just mentioning in the wiki is
 fine for them?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors


 Right. You don't need DELWP to give you any statement or permission in
 order to import their data to OpenStreetMap or derive data  for
 OpenStreetMap from their data.



 ___
 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] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Nick Whitelegg
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
 More philosophically the idea of someone claiming copyright on walking
 routes seems completely at odds with the nature of countryside walking,
 which to my mind has similar free and open values to open source software
 and data (the landowners and their Keep out signs being similar to
 proprietary licencing)


And pragmatically, there are real problems when an organisation that
establishes a route also seeks to derive income from selling
information about it. It seems logical, until your realise that the
organisation's two goals (promoting a route by disseminating
information about it; and gaining income to achieve the primary goal)
are completely contrary to each other.
The Tasmanian Trail is completely obscure because the only
information about it is in a mail-order paperback.
To walk/ride the Great Dividing Trail requires paying for four really
crappy maps. (Hopefully in two weeks' time it will be 90% OSM'ed.)
Rail Trails Australia was heading in a similar direction, but I helped
convince them that sharing information about the trails *is* their
mission.

Maybe the FFRP could be persuaded eventually? Convince them to give up
claims of copyright on the route geography, and focus on prose
descriptions, subjective details etc?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
 First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them
 created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be
 used without permission (see question below). Second issue : the
 routes themselves are copyrighted.

Hi Pieren,
  I am also not a lawyer, but here's my two cents. First, it would be
really said if we lost the GR routes. I recently hiked about half of
the GR20, using the OSM route of course. So I don't think we should
give up easily - they're so valuable.

On the trademark front, it should be easy to establish if they have a
genuine complaint. If they do, I think we can change the names without
losing too much - even if had to call them French hiking route 20 or
something.

 Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because
 the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as
 original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing
 the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the
 highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de
 Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same
 in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in
 France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and
 not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1).

On what basis do they claim ownership of the routes, exactly? As I
understand it, many of these routes link up lots of little trails that
had been around for decades. How did copyright get transferred from
the people who created the trails to the FFRP? Or do they claim
ownership only over new sections? Or only over a particular
representation?

Are they aware that all the data has been created independently, by
surveying the trail - not by actually copying their data?

I wonder where the exact line would be drawn - what if we didn't have
routes, but just the trails marked. But then, how would you label
such a trail - often they have no other name other than the GR number,
plus the name of the next landmark.

Presumably someone has sought French legal advice? What was it?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Progress update

[Steve Bennett]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm also a real mapper and I do truly desire the cleansing bot to weave
 It's magic as soon as possible.
 This is because I'm reluctant to add any new data to the project while there
 is *ANY* date left in the project that
 was not donated freely for the good of the project.

And me (also hopefully a real mapper) - I'm still in two minds.
Remapping is somewhat harder with old, tainted data in place. OTOH,
the longer we wait, the less disruptive the change will be. Although
last time I looked at CLEANMAP, it actually looked not too bad for
Victoria (Australia) - we'd lose a couple of towns and a few suburbs
around Melbourne, but nothing all that catastrophic, really.

I'd definitely appreciate more frequent updates to talk@ though. (I
think the issue is too important to be confined to obscure lists like
osmf@ and rebuild@)

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Andrew andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 Would it be an idea to invite international mappers to remotely remap
 Australia (or Poland) by, for example, tracing side streets from photographs?
 It could well have a stabilising effect that avoids any concer about armchair
 mapping damaging communities.

I for one would certainly welcome that. I have no concerns about
armchair mapping at all. We have good aerial imagery in the major
cities, and in plenty of places in between.

In many cases I've worked on, major roads have sections (eg, one lane
of a two lane freeway) that will disappear, and sections that will
remain. So it would be perfectly legitimate to delete the former, and
use information from the latter (names, route numbers etc) to recreate
them, without needing any local knowledge.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're
 an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data
 consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the
 rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly
 longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's
 just a collective work.)

Would it be possible to get the Mapnik rendering on openstreetmap.org
to do this?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
 This is about bad news in the hands of the most connected of people.  These
 are people who if they hate it will tweet it, facebook it, blog it, and
 re-post it.   This will be the first contact with OSM for millions, and the
 first time many millions more hear about it.  It really is in the interest
 of our project that the experience for that many people be as positive as we
 can practically achieve.

Well said.

 Maybe we achieve this by having a timetable that starts with the most
 complete areas and works down the list, thereby giving a month or so
 extension to those countries at the bottom?  That way, we don't lose the
 deadline, we can go easy on the disc heads, and still grant some sort of
 extension to those who have more work to do?

If this is possible, this would be great. I would immediately request
an extension of 3 months for Australian data. Our situation is, as
noted, amongst the worst: much of the major core data was contributed
by very active mappers who eventually declined the CTs, and left the
community. So not only do we have a bigger hole than most communities,
but we have less people to repair the hole.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions from a Journalist

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 If your journalist opened with that question I would probably stop talking
 to him because his use of the word destruction already shows that even
 though he knows nothing about the license change, he has already made up his
 mind about what he wants to write!

Note to community: please don't let Frederik ever talk to journalists...

:p

Steve

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

[OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?

[Steve Bennett]

Hi all,
  Could someone explain exactly what will be happening on April 1?
Will we really be purging all data from decliners? And if so, is this
not terrible timing, given the recent, high-profile signups of
companies like foursquare?

Given that many people are now actively remapping, is there any
prospect of pushing back the cutover deadline? Is there any reason not
to? Why do we want to reveal a map with huge holes in it to the world,
rather than doing the remapping privately, to minimise disruption to
data consumers?

Steve
(I previously asked a version of this question on talk).

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant
 * Disagreeing user B adds name=Fred's Pizza Place
 * Agreeing user C changes name=Tom's Pasta Emporium

 this node is clearly clean already, because it does not contain traces of
 B's work any longer. However a quite similar example...

 * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant
 * Disagreeing user B adds name=Freds Pizza Place
 * Agreeing user C changes name=Fred's Pizza Place

 ,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the
 place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to fix
 names?

Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes clean?
Presumably there are some principles based on the derived works
language in Creative Commons (IIRC...) But do we really know what a
derived work for a single fact is?

Does the test does not contain traces of non-CT-accepting users'
work hold up? How is trace defined? etc etc

Steve

___
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

[Steve Bennett]

Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits
submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be
used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual
which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time.

And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to
OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their
imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by
OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time.

They're completely opposite. It's not just looking for problems. If
Nearmap had wanted those contributions to be relicensable under some
future licence, they would have said so. They said the opposite:
under the terms in place...at the relevant time. *Not* under any
licence [the OSMF] chooses at any time. If lawyers drafted the
statement, they meant what they said.

At best, I'm interpreting it as existing contributions are licensed
under CC-BY-SA and/or ODbL, and that's ok. If you want to change the
licence again in the future, we'll talk. I mean, Nearmap have never
said they have a problem with ODbL, nor do they have a problem with
future relicensing *per se*. They have a problem with allowing
unspecified future licensing without power of veto.

So...I'm looking at this as a sort of stay of execution. The data can
stay in OSM until the licence changes again, which could be a few
years, it could be a long time. Who knows what will happen then, or
what it will mean if Nearmap is no longer around for some reason.
Remember we're talking about a terms of use issue, not a licensing
issue.

Steve


On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:01 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 So those guys put out a legal statement and an employee even gave you his
 interpretation on this list, which you can cite in court if you want. I
 think you're pretty solid and it feels like people are just looking for
 problems no matter what is done or said. :-(

 Steve
 stevecoast.com
 On Jun 16, 2011, at 0:44, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:

 My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any
 mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th
 June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF)
 chooses at any time.

 However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this
 wish.

 Nick

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

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



___
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

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
 The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been
 derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes
 the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db.  Not being

I'm still finding it a bit hard to understand exactly what is meant by
can remain in the OSM db. Is the following statement correct?
Nearmap-derived contributions prior to June 17 were licensed
CC-BY-SA*, and will remain part of the main, actively developed and
distributed OSM database even when it changes to ODbL, and Nearmap is
fine with that. However, they refuse to allow any contributions under
the new Contributor Terms, because those call for unspecified future
relicensing.

Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is  ODbL
considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that
is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could
someone confirm?)

Steve
* Or ODbL, depending on the contributor and time.

___
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

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:

 James; all I can say is that the paragraph in question was written by our
 General Counsel specifically to allow existing contributions to stay in
 place.  I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on interpretation!
 Regards


Hi Ben,
  I'd like to second the appreciation for Nearmap's position here. I'm very
much heartened that the large amount of Nearmap tracing I did will not be
lost. I think it's a real pity that Nearmap and OSMF weren't able to reach a
suitable agreement regarding future tracing, but I guess that's life. Maybe
one day.

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

[OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Steve Bennett]

I've just had my attention drawn to these lines in the minutes from 11-12 Dec:

The Board unanimously agrees that it is time to move forward after
several years of work on the new license.
...
The OSMF board mandates the LWG to enforce mandatory acceptance of the
CT and ODBL in order to edit the database by March 31st.

My first question is: which version of the CT is referred to there?
Does this mean the totally broken v1.0, the partially broken proposed
v1.2.2, or some hopefully non-broken v1.3?

If the answer to the previous is some hopefully non-broken v1.3,
what if it is not ready in time for April?

I'm extremely concerned about the potential loss of all
Nearmap-derived data for Australia: both because it represents a lot
of high quality mapping, and personally because of the hundreds of
hours of my own effort that will be completely wasted. And seemingly
there is not an irreconcilable difference here, but simply that
Nearmap and the LWG have not had the time or resources to find a
wording that is suitable to both parties.

Have I misunderstood the situation, or is that pretty much the size of
it: on April 1st, all Nearmap-derived data (and presumably data from
certain other providers who also use a strict CC-BY-SA licence) will
be wiped?

Steve

___
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 theBing TermsofUse?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I usually put a note=created from relation xyz or so on the new object, so

Ah, cool. Maybe it's worth using a standard tag for this, as suggested
in another thread. Like created_from=xxx

Steve

___
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 theBing TermsofUse?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 That's another area wide open to discussion; my interpretation of I
 consider my contributions PD has always been: I don't claim any rights in
 what I contribute. - not: I vouch for nobody holding any rights in what I
 contribute. (The latter position would not allow me to delete and re-upload
 an object that has been edited by someone under CC-BY-SA, something which I
 sometimes do e.g. if a relation has 1000 versions or so.)

Just curiosity here, but you're saying you intentionally delete the
history of objects? Doesn't that breach the BY part of CC-BY-SA?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote:

 I read this as saying that the terms of use, which are there as a hold
 harmless waiver, don't grant any rights.  It specifically states that if the
 city is claiming copyright on the data it will do so in the file or on the
 website that the file is accessed from.  The file in question has no such
 claims.

Ok, well argued.

 My understanding is that I am legally entitled to grant that license because
 the city isn't claiming copyright on the data.  Its public domain and as
 such can be added.  I think the current draft of the CTs was changed to
 accommodate such things.

One thing I'm curious about is the terms about indemnifying the City
of SF against possible harm resulting from using the data. Let's say
hypothetically that some third party uses the data that you
incorporated into OSM, crashed their car due to bad data, and
hypothetically they could sue someone over it. Now the OSM license
disclaims liability (on the part of OSMF?) but does that other
idemnification apply? (Actually I'm not sure what I'm asking actually
makes sense.)

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote:
 city changed the click through to address those problems.  The agreement is
 located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp.

See this clause:
These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such 
intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS Data.

Translation: You don't own it.

Now see this clause:
You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder

Translation: You don't own it, you can't add it.

(I'm glad this isn't just about Nearmap now.)

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Steve Bennett]

Hi all, thanks for the replies. I'll reply to specific, pertinent bits.

2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC

Thanks. (Might be worth showing this in the GUI.)

 If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.

Wrong.

You're not operating in a totally difference licensing mode, the
work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.

The CTs have lots of other implications which have been well
discussed, so I won't repeat them here.

 My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
 terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.

My issues with the CTs are not philosophical or aesthetic, but purely
practical and contractual.

In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were
authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the
form.

Thanks, that answers my question.

In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM,

Too many Steves - I haven't been to an SoTM. I am a nice guy though, really. :)

The problem is by agreeing to the CT Steve has breached his contract
with Nearmap, which in turn is a breach of CT terms so legally he had
no right to agree to the CTs in the first place.

Thanks. Exactly what I was trying to say, but I failed.

We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that
shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and
flag those changesets that are incompatible individually.

Interesting. (I won't comment further here.)

I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately
accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI.

Yes. Well, that's the question I'm asking myself. I have no idea.
August is a while ago. Perhaps I skim read the text and thought ODbL,
sure, without knowing the implications of what I was doing -
breaching the terms of my Nearmap user licence.

Could I point out that Wikipedia tells you *every single time you
edit* exactly what licence you're contributing under.

Regarding data
he's entered which is licensed by a third party, the third party needs
to make the data available to OSM in a way that works with OSM's
chosen license model, or else the data needs to be removed from OSM.

or else the CTs need to be made compatible with third party data
sources in general. (Unclear if license model includes CTs.)

And unlike those other organizations, you have direct ability not
only to accept or not accept the terms, but also to vote for the
organization's leadership, which AFAIK, isn't an option for Google
users.

Also to help shape those terms.

Think long-term! This is not a clause aimed at next year.

The CTs are broken now, not next year, nor long-term.

... because he has subsequently found out that he has no legal right to
give that data to OSMF, and has infact commited an offence himself.

Not an offence - this is contract law, not criminal law. I think one
of these has/will happen(ed):
- I have unwittingly violated Nearmap's terms of use (by handing over
rights which I said I wouldn't do)
- I have violated OSMF's contributor terms (by handing over rights I don't have)

 no way to unset the flag and no
way to register a new account with original contributor terms :(

What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad.

So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the
fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest
respect for the LWG, who are acting in good faith, this strikes me as
dumb. As soon as the first problems with the CTs 1.0 were realised, it
should have been repealed, sent back for further analysis, then
version 1.1 brought out. Leaving a broken 1.0 version in place, and
giving no opt-out mechanism is terrible form.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents.  The

At least in the case of Nearmap, they hold rights in Your Contents too:

You will own all Derived Works that you create. However, you may only
distribute Derived Works to others on the terms of a Creative Commons
Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence...

Maybe rights isn't the right word, but they impose conditions on
what you can do with Your Contents.

 There are multiple copyrights on a derivative work.  Each author's
 copyright extends only to his original material, and not to the
 material contributed by others.

Yeah, but copyright and licensing are two quite separate issues.

 I agree that if it's not crystal clear to you, that this situation
 should be fixed.  But it is crystal clear to me, so I'm not really
 sure how to fix it.

It's quite clear what the CTs say to me, and it's wrong. :)

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
 In order to derive data from nearmap.com PhotoMaps, you must agree to our
 community licence, which says:
 If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that
 information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to
 others under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence.
  In other words, you're constrained in what you can do with that derived
 work.  If you trace a street or a feature, that is a derived work, and you
 can distribute it under a CC-BY-SA licence.  But paragraph 2 of the CTs
 requires that you grant OSMF a much wider licence than CC-BY-SA, which you
 can't do, because you only have the right to distribute your derived work
 under CC-BY-SA.

It seems there is an assumption by the authors of the CTs that, as the
contributor of data:
1) you own the copyright to that data; and therefore
2) you can, and are willing to, grant an extremely wide licence to OSMF

However, this assumption is incorrect in at least these two cases:
1) You don't own the data, but it is licensed CC-BY-SA (or similar),
and therefore it would be compatible with OSM.
2) You own the data, but are prevented for other reasons (such as
NearMap's community licence) from granting the extremely wide licence
OSMF requires.

The bottom line is this: the CTs make open licences an insufficient
condition for inclusion of content into OSM.

I'm sad to hear that progress on the CTs has stalled - these versions
seem horribly flawed. Or, if my above conclusions are correct, and
intentional, there should be a big public statement explaining this
change in policy. Not simply We are making changes to allow a future
change in licensing, and this is a little administrative matter, but
We have decided to no longer accept open source content. All
submitted content must be either fully owned by the contributor, with
no restrictions, or submitted with the explicit permission of the
copyright owner.

Steve

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?

[Steve Bennett]

So, it's been a few months now. Any signs of progress on CTs that
would be compatible with data providers like NearMap?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.  
 So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate 
 that in plain language.

What I was getting at:
1) The CTs require that incoming be licensed as CC-BY-SA, and ODbL
*and* possible future licenses
2) I doubt there exists any data provider in the world that provides
such a license as a matter of course
3) Therefore any incoming content would have to come from a data
provider that *explicitly authorises it for OSM*.
4) Therefore the fact of any existing content being licensed under
CC-BY-SA and/or ODbL is meaningless, because it's not enough.


 So you really need to go back to the actual rights holder and ask them to 
 clarify what they personally/organisationally are happy with, or better 
 still, use a more appropriate license.  That is a major reason we want to 
 move away from it ourselves.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even if they licensed the
data under ODbL 1.0, that's not enough for me to use that data: I
don't have permission from the data provider to relicense it under
PFDbL 1.1 (possible future database licence 1.1).

 The other alternative is for us collectively to get a highly authoritative 
 source to say that a CC-BY-SA license on data could reasonably be interpreted 
 as giving permission to contribute to OSM. I'll find out where we are on that.

The other alternative is to ditch the future licence clause.

Steve

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[Steve Bennett]

Hi,
  Is the following statement correct: Under the new Contributor
Terms, you may only contribute to content to OSM that you own, or have
been given authority to license to the OSMF for future relicensing.

This is only slowly dawning on me. If this is correct, then we can no
longer do imports of CC-BY-SA data, unless the original provider
expressly gives open-ended relicensing permission: that is, simply
licensing it as CC-BY-SA and ODbL is not enough, we would need an
explicit statement that the content may be used under the new OSM
Contributor Terms.

Whee.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later
 under the ODbL. In order to do so it needs to have permission to do so.
 Clause 2 gives this permission.

 OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3
 indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible.

I see. I think I was missing the effect of the Subject to Section 3
below bit. So effectively Clause 2 says they can do whatever they
want with the data...subject to their self-imposed limitation that
they will only license it under one of those three licences.

Hmm. Well, the more I learn about it, I guess the less I'm convinced
it's the right way to go. It demands an awful lot of trust from users
in the OSMF, and really shuts out organisations like NearMap from the
whole process. I guess I'll still be signing up, depending on what
NearMap do.

But, I started this thread to ask a question, and it's been answered,
so I won't relaunch yet another variation on you bastards!

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 I guess clause 2 is redundant.  It would be sufficient to simply say
 contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL.

Except that Clause 3 contains  or another free and open license.

But otherwise, yes, that does seem a lot simpler:

OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 2.0

1. You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright
holder (to the extent the Contents include any copyrightable
elements). You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to
grant the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not
violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your
knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. If You are not the
copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You
have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents
and grant the license below.

2 Rights granted. You irrevocably license the Contents under all of
the following: CC-BY-SA 2.0, DbCL 1.0, ODbL 1.0.

Anyway, I'm very late to this discussion so I'm sure this dead horse
is well and truly beaten.

(No nitpicking on DbCL vs ODbL please - I'm not familiar with them)

Steve

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