Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey
On 6 April 2014 00:04, Paulo Carvalho paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com wrote: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps I see many people agree that we can use the images to access reality. This does not mean we're using the images themselves, which is copyrighted work. We'd be using the images even if we were not copying them, these are different things. Also, somebody has asked Google regarding Street View. Here is Ed Parsons' answer: Checking the odd street names is OK. But every street name I would suggest would represent a bulk feed. With all due respect, this is plain wrong. Anyone who dealt with databases know that a bulk load is... This is a Google service and it's up to them to define what bulk load is and isn't when they present you the agreement. You can only accept it or reject it as a whole except in very rare situations. And bulk feed refers to the Terms of Service: 2(e) [You may not] use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data Hope that helps. It says imagery. I'm not telling to download and use the images elsewhere. Reading a sign in SV photos and taking a note is different from copying them. Again I think the main point is the agreement doesn't say copy, it says use. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM data on copy-protected storage
On 9 April 2013 21:43, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The ODbL has a provision for parallel distribution in 4.7b: You may impose terms or technological measures on the Database ... in contravention of Section 4.74 a. only if You also make a copy of the Database or a Derivative Database available to the recipient of the Restricted Database ... So I guess they are fine; the recipient of the card (the Derivative Database) must have access to the data; it doesn't say how this access should work, i.e. the recipient has no right to an unencumbered database that is playable on his specific device. Or has he? 4.7b iii says that the unrestricted database must be at least as accessible to the recipient as a practical matter as the Restricted Database. - so if the recipient *only* has this special hardware device that can *only* play the encrypted cards, would a here's the pbf download link not be less accessible for him...? Thanks for your observations. I'll be checking with them if they can perhaps publish both raw OSM data and a version with OSM data alone that the device can read. (I'm not sure how that encryption works. For example if each layer was a separate file and the files were encrypted individually then it shouldn't be hard to do) However... the second piece you quote kind of makes it difficult to make use of section 4.7b that you quote first. Except in the cases where anyone can produce that Restricted Database from the original database and I imagine normally that's not the case. (?) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] OSM data on copy-protected storage
Hi, I'm relaying a license question from a company that collects lake bathymetry data and sells specialised GPS devices to fishers and sailors. They don't make the software on those devices and have to pay to get their data converted to the format understood by that software. They'd like to add layers of OpenStreetMap data to the storage cards shipped with a new device, but they'd like to keep their bathymetry and coastline data proprietary. The cards are copy-protected (encrypted, I believe). Their question is whether OpenStreetMap data can be distributed encrypted on those cards together with their own data. The company can publish, e.g. on their website, whatever files are necessary but they can't publish the conversion process or their own data unencrypted. My understanding is that if their coastline data is not merged with OSM coastline data (one or the other is shown), and if they publish raw OSM data or information on how they extracted it, then they are fine. But I will appreciate any comment from someone who deals with OSM licensing more. Cheers ___ 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
Hi, On 23 October 2012 11:44, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: ... During the license change discussion, my position was often this: Instead of trying to codify everything in watertight legalese, let's just make the data PD and write a human-readable moral contract that lists things we *expect* users to do, but don't *enforce*. - Maybe the same can be done with geocoding; we could agree on making no legal request for opening up any geodata, but at the same time make it very clear that we would consider it shameful for someone to exploit this in order to build any kind of improved geocoding without sharing back. A related question is whether any agreement like that can be made within the Contributor Terms. With the thread about the Public Domain OSM subset when someone said that the PD declaration had no real meaning I asked myself what made that declaration different from other license grants (I'm still not sure). But a license, according to Wikipedia, is an agreement not to sue under some conditions. An agreement not to sue under some conditions is a license. But the OSMF is bound by the Contributor Terms to only grant a subset of the two licenses listed in the CT, in their specific versions. So can it make a statement declaring that it would not sue under some conditions (e.g. use of the results of geocoding) and keep publishing data from current contributions? It can probably state that it understands the ODbL 1.0 license to allow users to do this and that under given conditions, or to not *apply* under some conditions in some jurisdiction (for example in USA). But this could also be abused by declaring something that is in contrast with what OSM contributors think, an extreme case being a statement that says that ODbL is effectively invalid, or that ODbL = PDDL. That could perhaps be treated as an agreement not to sue, i.e. license. So what kind of clarifications (if any) can the OSMF make about the licenses? As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still enforce the database rights. So a statement by the contributors (e.g. on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to the end user. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 28 May 2012 23:03, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: moving the discussion to legal On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Copying and pasting is not a copyright infringement. The Contributor Terms don't require that the data inserted into the database be compatible with ODbL -- only the current licensing terms, which still means CC-By-SA. Otherwise many many normal edits would also constitute an infringement. CC-BY-SA requires attribution. '' You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied;'' http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode and This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License so the new uploader lost his rights to copy it if he did not attribute it. So it is an infringement, unless you take the view that this data is not copyrightable at all and the cc-by-sa license does not protect anything. Mike, I wouldn't say the usernames appearing in the object history on www.osm.org/browse/... are used to fulfill the attribution requirement. First of all it'd break for many different basic operations done in the editors such as splitting and merging ways, copying tags, placing POIs with spatial reference to nearby streets. I kind of agree with Frederik Ramm's statement that (from memory) anything that relies on object id persistence is broken and so is part of the current redaction algorithm. I think a reasonable expectation for a contributor to have is that they'll be attributed as shown in the osm.org/copyright page, i.e. collectively as OpenStreetMap contributors. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps
Hi, On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hey All, I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite imagery. - So let's say you fly photos of an area - To stitch them together you use Google Maps imagery as the base - What is the deal with the imagery at that point? - If I trace the imagery is that really derived from Google Maps? It seems insignificant to me, but I wanted to get some insight. I would also like to know, especially in the context of Jeff Warren's mail on talk. I think the legal side here is easier than the community customs. I have heard both obviously if it's rectified using Google, it can't be used in OSM, and obviously it doesn't matter. I think Bing support in Map Knitter (even though legally it's in the same bandwagon as Google) would have a better community acceptance. Where I tried rectifying something with Map Knitter, Google imagery was useless because of complete cloud cover, too. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Hi, On 7 March 2012 09:16, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are of the opposite opinion and they say let's wait until after the license change, and then see what's missing and fix it. I would much prefer people to remap now but it seems that remapping is not for everyone. I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since sliced bread I still can't see the reasons for remapping. First of all it costs more work than adding data from scratch and it takes people's time away from doing actual mapping -- creating new data. So it's not a zero net gain operation -- i.e. we lose new contributions, but we get to keep the same amount of work which would have been deleted. Rather, after the potential switch-over we will have less data than if we kept on doing on what we always did. Secondly mapping after the incompatible (with the LWG's risky definition of compatibility) data has been removed by a non-person, should be *much* preferred for the clean-ness of IP rights. Even if done correctly, the remapping keeps some information from the old non-kosher data (like the fact that something worthy of featuring was here). But it's hard for a human to do correctly, most of the times much more information is be copied over consciously or not. The usual thinking process will be what is the shortest way for me to get that visualisation tool, considering the rules it uses, to show this object in a lower wavelength colour? It has only a little to do with removing unwanted IP. As an owner of a declined account I get messages from people who observe those things. It looks like after the change, which was supposed to make OSM's legal situation cleaner, I think it's safer for a Random Big Company to perhaps use wikimapia. Cheers The current graphs - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html - point steadily downwards but if you extrapolate you'll see that they are unlikely to reach zero before autumn. Is there any reason not to? I think that a number of people on the OSMF board - Steve and Mikel at least because I've spoken to them in a management team conference call about a month ago, but likely others too - are of the opinion that OSMF must be seen by the world to be reliable and be in charge; they fear that if OSMF should now renege on the 1st April promise they've made, then people might come to the conclusion that OSMF cannot be trusted. However they see a trustworthy OSMF as a necessary basis for dealing with the business community, and acquiring funding, data, or other support from them. In the aforementioned management team telephone conference I said, You can't tell me that April 1st is success, and April 2nd is failure and was told that the board thinks different. (This is from memory.) (In my eyes, it is a very bad idea for OSMF board to commit themselves to something which is not under their control; and we must definitely avoid this kind of ambitious goal-setting in the future. OSMF can set goals for OSMF, but OSMF must not set goals for OSM. But that's a discussion we can, and should, have after the license change is through.) This doesn't mean that a postponement cannot happen; certainly board won't simply shut down OSM on April 1st until the bot run is complete just to be able to say that they met their target. But it does mean that a postponement would need really solid reasons which would allow those on the board who committed themselves to the 1st April deadline to save face. If we wait another month then 5% more data can be remapped is not a solid reason, and neither is I'm sure Foursquare would be unhappy to lose a few roads in the US. These reasons are especially bad because they an be repeated month after month and thus could make the process drag on endlessly. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 7 March 2012 16:57, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 07/03/12 15:45, andrzej zaborowski wrote: I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since sliced bread I still can't see the reasons for remapping. First of all it costs more work than adding data from scratch and it takes people's time away from doing actual mapping -- creating new data. So it's not a zero net gain operation -- i.e. we lose new contributions, but we get to keep the same amount of work which would have been deleted. Rather, after the potential switch-over we will have less data than if we kept on doing on what we always did. I have been examining the data marked as something that will be lost in an area fairly close to me. Much of this was created many years ago and the original editor has not responded to attempts to contact them. Much of this is based on poor-quality aerial imagery. Replacing it with a survey or even more recent imagery creates much higher quality data, not least better geometry. I have gone on to improve other work sometimes by adding extra detail for example roundabout flares, road names (from survey or other open sources) and adding otherwise missing roads, tracks etc. Like-for-like replacement might not be useful, but much of this is a positive improvement and worthwhile in its own right. I might not have looked at some of these areas without the process of licence change. I will now be reviewing the whole area (northern Lincolnshire, UK) over the next few months and I expect to find lots of potential improvements, just like anywhere else. Those are useful improvements, I'm not saying they aren't. But you did have to manually delete the existing data, something that is expected to be done by a bot anyway. You may have spent as little as 1% of the mapping time on it, but it is still a slight overhead. Likely it was higher if you had to investigate the situation, install an editor plugin and so on. So if those deletions were done automatically you could have added those same details and a hypothetical 0.01 more. Assuming that there are other things to add to OSM (and I've not yet been to a place where there weren't, maybe except one neighbourhood in Dublin), remapping before the cut-off date can at best have a close to zero negative result. Cheers ___ 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
On 13 February 2012 12:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to data that is in the database should be attribution via the Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because of the necessary data removal). Simon PS: Andrzej will naturally point to the Polish situation, and I will point back saying: please supply a list of the relevant changesets of CC-by-2.0 data that were erroneously declared good (by way of excepting the CTs). (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. 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. 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. (for the record, I did indicate to the LWG how to produce a list of the changesets in Poland containing imported CC-By-SA data) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 2 February 2012 15:11, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: andrzej zaborowski schrieb: Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said give away. But obviously we're talking about the grant of rights. Yes, every open soruce license is a grant of rights, as that's the basic definition of open. If there wouldn't be a grant of any rights, no license would be needed at all, as copyright law in various countries covers not being able to use other people's work pretty well. All we are about is being able to use other people's work, though. Yep. But then I don't understand what your point is, I think we agree about the terms. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
On 30 January 2012 15:21, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: andrzej zaborowski wrote: (I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point) It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have [p+i]+j and [l+p] and an odd isolated section of k. Probably the only case in which you can actually check whether the user was splitting, or creating afresh but using some of the same (agreeing) nodes, is if they were using Potlatch 1's live mode. And I don't think that's been good practice for a while. ;) In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags, then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/ or tags is reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the effects is the same. Practical purposes, sure, but not IP purposes. If we're saying that there is IP in the sweat-of-the-brow required to create those tags or that arrangement of nodes, then we need to know whose brow was sweaty. As I understand, you're assuming that whether ways j+k were created from way i using a split operation is significant for IP purposes. I think it isn't, same as for practical purposes. Deleting a way and recreating it with the same tags and nodes inside a changeset shouldn't be treated as creating a new way, imho. The only thing that changed is the way Id. So I'd say you can get pretty good reliability of detecting splits, merges and copying tags from nodes to ways, my guess is below 1% error frequency. Whereas always assuming the object Id to represent the history of the object yields 100% error in those cases. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi Robert, On 31 January 2012 21:53, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: andrzej zaborowski schrieb: I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects. Interesting to see Mozilla mentioned here as clearly every contributor retains his rights when contributing to Mozilla code and does not assign any of his rights to anyone. Assignment of your rights requires a written agreement in some jurisdictions so there's no talk of that. Mozilla, Facebook, etc, as you say, require a grant of the right to sublicense and other rights. As a result individual contributors are no longer the end licensors as in most projects I know as free and as in OpenStreetMap today. Various reasons are being quoted for doing that and there are various reasons against it (see the last two years of this list's archives). You're right when it comes to FSF though, they have a strict copyright assignment policy, when you contribute code there, you don't own it any more but the FSF does. Also note that under the OSM CTs, there is no copyright assignment per se, there is only a sub-license agreement. You don't *give away* your copyright, but you allow the OSMF to to *use* your copyrighted material and sub-license it. Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said give away. But obviously we're talking about the grant of rights. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
On 30 January 2012 12:13, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
new way denotes a split.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
If we have:
(state before changeset)
way i=[ABCDEFGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
(state after changeset)
way j=[ABCDEF], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
way k=[FGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Mog Walk }
we cannot say with certainty that there is a split. All we know are that two
new ways have been created using the nodes that were in a previous, now
deleted way. The name Frog Street might be carried over from way i, but
then again it might have been entered afresh by the changeset creator.
There's no way to tell.
_If_ it was i-i+j, rather than i-j+k, then that tilts the balance in
favour of a split. But even then it's not certain. In the absence of editor
and API support, there's no way to tell for sure.
(I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point)
In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags,
then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/or tags is
reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split
operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the
effects is the same. In practice the operation was a split, wasn't
it? (A changeset browser that could recognise that would be a really
useful service, I think someone was even working on one)
Cheers
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: I sort-of feel responsible for my areas of the map, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it my data. I contribute to this map, because I want free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into the hands of the community of which you and I are a part. So I hope you understand when I call your opinion to be quite selfish and even offensive. My data or OSM community's data are vague terms in the world of free data. In practice it's everybody's data and using a free license is enough for that. Granting the OSM community special rights doesn't make it more free. I think this is what Mike says. I agree with Mike. There are so many great projects where individual contributors are the end licensors and I really love that model. It doesn't change much for the end user, but somehow it has always felt right to me and felt like the future of the crowdsourced world. I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects. With disappointment I have to add OSM to my personal list of projects that are going worse and where good times are gone. (We all have such lists and yes, we're frustrated with one change but we fail to notice all the positive changes happening at the same time..) The so-called loss of data is lost already, because it stands in the way of many innovative and good uses of our map data. What uses do you have in mind?? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
On 19 January 2012 21:48, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On 18.01.2012 23:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list) to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in I didn't know about that list - I'll join it. terms of policy, LWG will have the ultimate decision. And they are asking for out input via the What is clean page. That page is not, and was not intended to be, a binding document - it might become one later. I assume that LWG will certainly value your help in improving that document. Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the What is clean page, because I wasn't sure whether I was entitled to edit it, not being an LWG member. IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. It has often been said that computer geeks, of which I presume you are one, are not well suited to perform legal analyis. The lawyer's answer to Is a node copyrightable? will almost certainly be it depends. (On country, circumstances, ...) Sure. In OSM, our current answers are: Yes, we treat a node as copyrightable; If yes, what's copyrightable about it? Its position and tags, unless the tags have been created automatically. What's copyrightable about a way? The sequence of its nodes and its tags. Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Every single tag and every single node reference are a treated as copyrightable by us. Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Atomic. So moving a way is not considered a modification of the way, but of the individual nodes. And changing a way's references from ABC to ACB is not a modification at all, because no reference is created and no reference is removed. We cannot say that there was a modification in regard to any of the references. Next question, since according to your answers the approach is rather fine-grained, one might ask if single words within tags are copyrightable. What about roles of relation members, are they separated from the members' references? Above all, we must not forget to consider whether the creation or modification of a single reference, a single role - i.e. anything we say to be atomic - can possibly constitute a creative work. To be safe you cannot make any decision based on what rights a *single* instance of anything would have because the criteria will be applied in bulk. In practice you always have to consider what rights a database of such references could be protected by. Secondly it's known that in some instances in some countries creativity is not required for copyright to work. Thirdly in many countries there are other intellectual property rights that could play some roles. So the criteria have to be based on where you can say there's no content left from an incompatible edit, not whether it's uncreative. Or where something is part of a bulk edit that will be trivial to recreate if it's lost. Cheers ___ 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
On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/16 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what we're going to have to live with. +1 Are you serious? Around where I map I estimate there are 500k to a couple millions OSM objects who's authors have never agreed to ODbL or OpenStreetMap CT, but which show green on the license change maps. And although OSMF has not started publishing data under ODbL yet, these people already feel like they've been cheated and have no say over how their work is being used. They asked me as an ex-osmf member where the official license-clean map was, where a human readable version of the OSM Contributor Terms could be had, whether any of the recent recommendations on what can be considered license-clean has ever been reality-checked with a lawyer, etc. All these times all I could answer was no or there's none and apologise. On the other hand when trying to have those issues cleared up myself I'm never getting my mails answered. It really looks like OSM's goal once was to be whiter than white legally, and now it's mostly about the risk of getting sued (expressly stated in LWG communication). Cheers ___ 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
On 18 January 2012 23:33, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 01/18/2012 05:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed. Now OSM uses their map data and entire cities initially imported from their project are shown green. This is a consequence of how LWG wrote the Contibutor Terms and the cleanness-criteria. If somewhere an entire city [is] shown green then this means that *someone* in OSM has added odbl=clean to all the objects. That person, and not LWG, bears the responsibility. Can you point to an example? Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and this leads to a lot of misunderstandings. (This should be fixed if the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be) I can understand people when they can't agree to the CT's for a variety of reasons, but why they would feel 'cheated' when the rest of us are merely trying to continue where they left off minimizing the damage, is beyond me. And this is something I can not understand. Say that you're contributing to a project with some purpose or license. Now a subgroup of contributors wants to change this and continue without any losses. If the original contributors don't think the new direction is correct, why should they all have to help that subgroup? I think that Jo does not talk about helping (in terms of doing work), but just about letting what you call a subgroup have the data. I.e. they don't have to actively spend time; the work is already done; all it needs is a yes. And while you're right in saying that just because you agree to let others have your work und free and open license A it doesn't mean that you also like free and open license B, the truth is that from a small distance, we're all in the same camp, the group of people who like free and open licenses. We might have our differences, some of us have a beard and prefer the team free software while others are clean-shaved and talk about open source software, and so some this sounds like a real big deal, but you only have to take one step back and you'll see that basically we're all of the same tribe. You're right here. When I said new direction I admit that's an exaggeration if we're talking about CC-By-SA vs ODbL. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 27 December 2011 15:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote: * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the tag name (individually or for a large number of objects)? No. It would be possible to say that a constribution is only harmless if neither the tag nor the value are present in the final version but then there will again be examples where this is wrong. I think a good way to deal with such but what if... situations is not to make sure they never occur, but to produce some kind of quantitative assessment. If we have reason to believe that the new rules produce something like a hundred errors then who cares. If it's more like a million then it needs to be fixed ;) Right, I asked because I think this case is quite frequent. Some changes, like natural=wood - landuse=forest, shop=dentist - amenity=dentist, and the other way are often done massively by people (not that they're very useful..). It's possible that in absolute numbers they're more frequent than genuine changes to the map. A similar case is where a mapper adds many ways in a city, but another mapper thinks all of the objects were misaligned and offsets them en masse. Is your assumption here also that this takes all IP away from the first mapper? Currently in OSMI, this mapper will continue to be viewed as the author of all the ways; it is just the node positions that he got wrong and where his contribution is overwritten by the change. If we talk about individual node positions then he got them wrong, but if we talk about geometries then the later change is a detail. But actually this case is probably quite rare so your earlier argument applies. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] There is no copyright on way tags like street names
On 28 December 2011 01:49, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in red on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. These streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs to add the same tags: highway=residential name=Parkallee maxspeed=30 oneway=yes surface=cobblestone lit=yes There is no creativity in that, just the luck of being the first editor. In 2007, an anonymous editor was the lucky first one who noticed a street sign that has existed for almost 100 years now. In 2011, I have added some tags to v3. If I created (produced) a new way with a new number, but the same tags, it would be considered CLEAN. If I kept the old way for honouring history without legal obligation (as its tags are not covered by copyright), the same way with the same tags and the same last editor would be considered DIRTY. Some reasons that I think it'd be risky to use that fact that there's no copyright in some tags are: * copyright works this way in many jurisdictions but in other jurisdictions the creativity factor is less important and the amount of work put into collection of data (sweat of the brow) is more important, so effectively copyright works a little like database rights in those places. IIRC this includes UK. * beside the copyright there are other intellectual property rights that may apply. * there may be some tags where there is some creativity, so if you want to be safe you have to look at each piece of information individually. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 20 December 2011 21:27, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Dear All, LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition. Draft minutes are here. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlAWomOiGxhgG8 Of particular interest are: - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position? These question should really be asked to a lawyer who also knows how OSM works. I understand the LWG may want to ask the community if this is worth consulting. But ultimately the cleanness criteria are not up for voting or discussion in a circle of people who obviously want to be done with this process without losing their contributions (or anyone else who's not expert in IPR really) (on the other hand there is a lot of things that could, and maybe should, be decided by all of community but instead are decided in a small group, like the date for the switch to a next phase of the license change process) - is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in reconciling the data base? Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects that are known to come from ODbL-incompatible sources but whose contributors accepted Contributor Terms 1.2.4, of which there is a significant number. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 21 December 2011 12:43, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: andrzej zaborowski balrogg@... writes: - is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in reconciling the data base? Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects that are known to come from ODbL-incompatible sources but whose contributors accepted Contributor Terms 1.2.4, of which there is a significant number. Hold on - is OSMF going to delete contributions even from some people who *did* accept the new contributor terms? (I'm not saying it should or it should not, but this needs to be made clear.) This has been made clear many times: whether to delete an object or not needs to be decided looking at some part of its edits history, so even if your contribution is clean, the object may be tainted. The case I'm thinking about though is where a mapper accepted CT but had previously (or later) contributed data incompatible with ODbL. Which is something that seems to be allowed by CT, as long as 1. you grant OSMF the rights that you have in the data, 2. what you uploaded was compatible with current licensing. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
[changing lists] On 15 December 2011 13:30, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote: Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what the source for moving the nodes was. Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools currently take that into account ? Should they only take the object's source tag into account or also mention of a source in the changeset commit comment ? The source tag isn't very reliable in general, I know I tend to (if at all) use source=foo on ways where I have only derived the geometry from foo (e.g. imagery) and the attributes from local knowledge. Sometimes I'll use source=foo on a POI where I obtained the attributes from foo and the position was derived from nearby streets. In some specific cases it may be reliable though. In an import of UMP data in Poland we have been removing the source=UMP tag precisely to mark objects that are no longer derived from UMP in any way. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Retain PD mapper's contributions?
On 27 November 2011 14:10, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Mike N. wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account) Is this a way that we might be able to retain a declared-PD-but-CT-declining mapper's contributions? Yes. The Contributor Terms say If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. In other words, you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current licence terms. PD is compatible with the current licence terms. PD is compatible with everything! So it requires a user to take on the contributions of the PD/decliner. This might be done elegantly (i.e. by reassigning their contributions within the database - pretty much 'UPDATE changesets SET user=the_new_mapper WHERE user=the_PD_decliner'), if LWG consents. Or alternatively, as Frederik alludes, it might be done rather more messily, by deleting and reimporting the PD/decliner's contributions and any subsequent (CT-agreeing) alterations. Obviously I hope we can use the elegant solution. :) Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely to change its legal status. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Retain PD mapper's contributions?
On 27 November 2011 15:14, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: andrzej zaborowski wrote: Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely to change its legal status. Surely you understand that the issue is not the legal status of the data in isolation, it's whether or not the mapper associated with that data has assented to the CTs. The CTs say You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. For one reason or another, TimSC, for example, does not want to give that assurance to OSMF; I am, however, happy to do so for his data. Right, I'm just saying that amending the edits history so that it's (in a way) false also seems like the wrong tool to achieve this. Additionally to switch to ODbL the OSMF will need an assurance that data is compatible with ODbL instead of only with the current license terms which CT requires. (different topic) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote: If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly OSM community can help your resolve the problem of not agreeing with yourself. ;-) PD is only compatible in the sense that another person can take the data and upload it to OSM. But you don't have a contract with the OSMF and so you can't upload it yourself. For the record CC-By-SA is compatible with the new Contributor Terms much like public domain is. Cheers ___ 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
On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce attribution on produced works at the very least. I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. But this is quite confusing, I'm not sure if Robert is right and Mike Collinson's e-mail makes it even more difficult to interpret the Contributor Terms becuase it seems to say: contributed data needs to be ODbL compatible but doesn't need to be strictly compatible with all the possible future free and open licenses But I see only two possible interpretations of the Contributor Terms: * contributed data needs to be compatible with the *current* license or * contributed data needs to be compatible with CC-By-SA, ODbL 1.0+DbCL and any future free and open license with no midway point. Cheers ___ 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
On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. News to me. Do you have a pointer? Some secondary sources (i.e. not license text), it looks like it may apply only to some ports of version 3 and is considered for version 4, but there's something even in version 2 ports: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html For example the pdf says (about european ports): In other words, the sui generis license should not extend the restrictions of the CC license conditions to things (facts, ideas, information, etc.) not protected by copyright. But also says: 2. Unconditional waiver of the of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive at the end of section 3 of the licenses: Where the licensor is the owner of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive, the licensor will waive this right. and the person making the tiles is probably not the owner (but in case of tiles.openstreetmap.org it might be). Cheers ___ 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
On 17 June 2011 17:17, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. News to me. Do you have a pointer? Some secondary sources (i.e. not license text), it looks like it may apply only to some ports of version 3 and is considered for version 4, but there's something even in version 2 ports: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html For example the pdf says (about european ports): In other words, the sui generis license should not extend the restrictions of the CC license conditions to things (facts, ideas, information, etc.) not protected by copyright. Actually, ignore the above fragment. But also says: 2. Unconditional waiver of the of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive at the end of section 3 of the licenses: Where the licensor is the owner of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive, the licensor will waive this right. and the person making the tiles is probably not the owner (but in case of tiles.openstreetmap.org it might be). Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license for Wiki Loves Monuments
On 14 May 2011 18:49, Kolossos tim.al...@s2002.tu-chemnitz.de wrote: This september will be a relative large event from Wikimedia-side across europe: Wiki Loves Monuments. It is a public photo contest around monuments (overview of the cultural heritage, also small houses) and we will create lists of monuments in Wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 We (Wikipedia-people) will ask different official side for the object lists they have as starting point for us. This lists will contains a lot of objects (10.000) with adresses, descriptions, coordinates (with luck), year of build, architect, My question is now under which license or terms we should ask for these list so that they later reusable for OpenStreetMap. Would a CC-BY-SA ok or should it be ODBL? One additional thing OSM asks is that the coordinates be derived from a free source and not Google Maps and the like. I'm just mentioning it because it's often a surprise for wikipedians who want to contribute to OSM something they previously made for wikipedia. We had a discussion about the Wiki Loves Monuments project on osm Polish forums in the context of collaboration between Wikimedia local chapter and the osm to-be local chapter, and this Google question came up again. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 11:39, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. I asked a similar question in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is that most likely your contribution in this case equals to only the *modification* of the original data. So you're granting OSM a license on your modification of the original data, and not the exact contents of the XML document being uploaded. Cheers ___ 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)
On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Thanks Grant, I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe unclear: What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor terms mean: From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. As written down it seems opposite to the OSMF statutes and memorandum... Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
Hi Joao, On 21 January 2011 16:32, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote: Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing! To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in the open source / community space all seem to have a very healthy balance between individual contribution and private contribution/investment. I think the share-alike requirement is killing the potential for growing a private ecosystem. In my opinion there aren't that many sustainable business models in this space where companies can freely share their data. If you do that, then eventually someone will copy your data and business model. With your differentiation factor gone, you'll be out of business pretty soon. I'll investigate the possibility of building a business that generates significant contribution to OSM POI data, but I'm skeptical that it can be made profitable while sharing data with the competition. The hope here is that the availability of open data like that of OSM will change this view at one point and the business models will change. If your differentiation factor is data it'll probably be harder to stay on the market. But it'll be much easier to enter the market for those that make creative uses of data, which is what the contributors of a project like this will often want (what I want anyway) -- more creative uses, more new uses, more advanced technology, faster. If the underlying data can be crowdsourced fro free then, for me, there is no need for a company to exist that will do the same thing commercially and it's only better if the company directs efforts elsewhere. I see the situation as a little similar to when open-source software wasn't yet popular and people thought it was a funny idea that it would be exploitable commercially. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 13:24, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote: If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why are we not using it now? I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their data because they have not signed up to any CT that would allow us to do so even if they are in the minority. Also, there is no binding definition on who is an active contributor (and thus has a right to vote). So this procedure really is only possible *after* everyone has signed up. There's no mandate or binding definitions for many things today, yet things (like license change) are happening, so I don't see a reason why it should be impossible for the OSMF to assume this definition (since it's well-thought-out) and follow that procedure. I think it's mostly a matter of good will. One reason that I have to recognise for not doing a real vote, only the new terms acceptation, is if OSMF thinks it's too much bother for users and too many difficult to understand questions will bore people who are really just interested in mapping. But I think it *should* be possible for every contributor to easily opt-in for a vote about all the important things currently decided by LWG or the board, like whether to stop accepting contributions under the old license, when, and most importantly whether enough people have accepted the CT to remove old data. But I fear that this will be decided in a small group similarly to the blocking of non-CT contributors in Apr. The original OSMF all-members vote basically asked if the OSMF should proceed with such and such procedure but I would assume (and perhaps not only me) that the intent of the voted question was should we start and see how well it goes and at different points we look at it and see if we still want to proceed. Cheers ___ 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 Terms of Use?
On 22 December 2010 15:18, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from openstreetmap.org(dump maybe) under it's then license. (is my interpretation) -- Well, sure, but the more interesting question is can it be distributed under other licenses outside of OSM, provided that it is contributed to OSM as well. By my reading of the license, yes, it can, and it's cool of Microsoft to decide it this way. But I may be misinterpreting the license (or the license is vague) as this has happened to me before. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can submit such data without automatically being in violation of the third party's rights? Well, if a contributor contributes data over which there is some IP right, then that may constitute a form of secondary infringement by the contributor. There's no way to avoid this. Putting a contractual provision requiring the contributor to warrant compliance, won't stop them being liable if they make a mistake (although it might make them more careful). I doubt that imposing a duty on OSMF to remove any data which they discover to be unlawful would help (there's still a high chance of some form of secondary infringement). Imposing a duty to remove any data which would be unlawful for OSMF to distribute whether OSMF knows or not (in other words transferring the warranty to OSMF) would impose an serious burden on OSMF to guard contributors from their own mistakes. It could be done, but it would require serious thought. So, I think your objection has substance, but it is directed at the wrong thing. Thanks for the explanation. Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. (I have the same doubt about not guaranteeing compatibility with future OSM licenses) Well, that's an impossibility (its hard enough to check compatibility with existing licenses). If OSMF agrees to make reasonable efforts to remove offending data, that should be enough to absolve any contributor of secondary liability. We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others may be enough to do the trick. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an No. Its purpose is to expressly state that the contributor does not guarantee to OSMF that it would be lawful for OSMF to licence the data. Earlier versions asked the contributor to give a warranty that the contribution was free of others' IP rights. My understanding is that that was felt to be unfair to contributors (who are after all not lawyers). Ah, I guess this makes sense although it didn't compute for me because if it's difficult for the contributor to guarantee that the license is compatible then it's even more difficult for OSMF who won't even know the origin of the data. (So if some data ends up being licensed by OSMF it'll be difficult to point to the basis on which it was decided to be ok (other than optimism). But from your explanation I understand that the OSMF is most likely to receive the blame for distribution of the content that is against the license given by the original author) What it does not do is prevent the contributor from being liable to third parties in some way. *That* would be difficult to do since its not in OSMF's power to absolve the contributor from any liability they might have. Of course. So the existing state of affairs is: - contributors contribute at their own risk, if the act of contributing is itself an infringement, that's their problem - OSMF assumes any risk of publication of that data and cannot sue a contributor if they wrongly contribute data which later turns out to be incompatible with one or more of OSMF's licences - whether a contributor could be liable for some kind of secondary liability is very difficult to say since IP laws vary worldwide and so do third party licenses, my sense is that the risk is small since the wording is not easily compatible with the idea of authorisation In particular the you do not need to guarantee... looks to me to count against authorisation. If the contributor did guarantee that would look more like authorising OSMF to do what it should not do. As I said, some reasonable obligation on OSMF to try to avoid IP violations might do the trick. But you want to be careful about imposing too onerous a duty on OSMF. Yes, but you also want someone to be on that duty in the end (or maybe that's not needed, I don't know). effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). 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. Ah that's not what I mean. Just that that sentence to me initally read as we allow you to contribute any data (possibly despite what others say), although we may remove it, but I see this is just me. I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell I'm not sure what you mean by terminating. Breach of contract does not ordinarily terminate the contract. Even a fundamental breach doesn't necessarily do so. You're right, I now see that there's nothing about termination in the document. a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. No. That isn't how English contract law works. The current wording is intended to imply (sure its not express, but the goal is fairly short wording I understand it) that OSMF doesn't have any obligations to relicense the data if it would be unlawful. That's what 1(b) does. 1(a) does a different job. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? I think it would be an enormous stretch for any IP owner to try to show secondary liability on the contributor in that case. Its something that could be nailed down even further of course. If I was drafting the contributor terms with certainty (rather than brevity) in mind, they'd be much much longer and there'd be no doubt in anyone's mind what they did - that is in the mind's of those who bother to read contracts and that is the problem. So the answer is that most likely the OSMF may be liable. I'm interested in this because I have submitted data collected by other people and now they may grant me an ODbL license on it (in addition to CC-By-SA) so that I can accept the contributor terms
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 2 December 2010 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, fx99 wrote: 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, . can somebody explain to me, who is meant by any party that receives Your Contents ? Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads your contents from the OSMF servers? But that would mean that anyone who downloads the content is granted two licenses, one by the OSMF and one You. In effect would the license the OSMF chooses for the database contents (the DBcL) make any difference? Since the user can instead use the worldwide (...) license do anything resitricted by copyright etc. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] openstreetmap in some flash advertising
Hi, On 22 November 2010 13:43, Johnny Rose Carlsen o...@wenix.dk wrote: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/21/2010 08:53 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Legally they might have to attribute OSM but I'm really thankful they don't, because what they have to sell is some shady software that claims to be able to locate people when in reality it's just an x-ray pornocam style rip-off and I would't want to see OSM mentioned in that context. BY-SA does allow you to request the removal of attribution from derivative works (BY-SA 2.0 Generic 4.a). This might be useful in future to preventing OSM becoming associated with any other outbreaks of pornocamvertising. How does that work? Does is require all contributors to agree on it?, or is there another way? Probably, but CC-By-SA, the current license, is probably way too vague to help decide who can request the removal. For example if you wanted to be pedantic in attributing the authors, users would need to attribute every single author but instead the practice is to attribute OSM and contributors collectively. So it wouldn't make sense for any subset of contributors to request to not be attributed because they aren't. OSMF isn't attributed either, and OSMF is not the copyright owner under the current license (at least not the owner of a huge amount of edits) although it is the owner of the trademark, so maybe there's something they can do. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Use Case
Hi Xavier, On 22 November 2010 22:03, Xavier Loiseau xavier.lois...@ijoinery.com wrote: 1. You don't have to release what you haven't got. So if the only thing required for your application to work is the *location* then just store the location and not the address. You can still dump the address to a log file on input, in case you need to follow things up manually later, but if the only thing in your database is the location then that's all you have to release. I think that having to publish locations (latitudes longitudes) is equivalent to having to publish addresses since a location can be converted into an address and vice versa. Therefore, having to publish locations instead of addresses does not protect the privacy. Sorry, I had understood previously that the pictures would be published and you wanted to keep the addresses private. If this is not the case then I don't see much problem, you don't have to publish any new data to anyone, you can make the location available to just the user who submitted the picture -- there's no need to publish this information to any other users because each user's account could equally well live in a separate database. Although I may be misunderstanding the issue again. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Hi, On 18 November 2010 11:24, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November 2010 10:14, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too. So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to add third-party data released under anything less than fully-permissive terms, even if it happened to be compatible with the licence OSM uses at present. No. That's not the case and on this point the draft licence *is* clear enough in my view. Its important to read the existing draft as is, rather than recalling what earlier drafts said. The existing draft aims to allow: - the addition of data that the contributor themselves can licence - in this case the contributor grants a perpetual licence to OSMF to relicense it under whatever current licence is being used (subject to conditions that are being discussed - but free and open of some kind), you need the CT to license the data somehow, or OSMF won't know what they can do with it - addition of data licensed under some other licence which looks like (to the contributor) it is compatible with the OSMF's current licence - there is no need for the contributor to be sure about this, but OSMF makes it clear that this is what it would like I think I have the same question about this as David Groom: The OSMF tells me that I'm allowed to contribute data owned by somebody else which is compatible with the license currently used, but I acknowledge that they may change the license later. But, is it legal for me to contribute that data, knowing that the OSMF may eventually distribute it under an incompatible license? (if they don't decide to immediately delete it, which they avoid to pledge to do in the CT) So OSMF tells me I can do something -- they don't mind, but am I not exposing myself to legal consequences if I do that? To better show this with some worst case scenario, imagine I upload data I'm given by a 3rd party under a license compatible with The Current License, the OSMF then at some point changes its license to one that is incompatible and for a short period keeps redistributing my data under it. During this time someone downloads it and is granted that new license and excercises the rights he is granted. The 3rd party author of the data decides that he has suffered some sort of damage and seeks the person responsible for the damage to repair it. Me as a contributor will be the responsible party. Let's say this does not happen, but by agreeing to the CT and contributing that data, I'm allowing such a scenario to happen with a very small probability. Is this by itself not a violation of the third party's license? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Hi, On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'. They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work. When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume that it doesn't contain anyone else's work under conditions different from those in the license I was given, unless I'm told so. So I should be able to excercise my right to reverse engineer the POIs names and positions and the streets graph represented by the bitmaps and distribute the result under a license compatible with the CC license. So it should be entirely possible to reproduce most of planet.osm or at least the useful part of it (so e.g. not the object IDs and not their order) which would not be covered by database rights or copyright of OSMF. For example I could produce z30 tiles with a public domain mapnik stylesheet and my friend could run a program to produce a .osm file taking the tileset and the stylesheet as input. If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work, for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady Gaga song then record that, the work that you have reverse engineered still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced work to make it. Is there any known case that would show that this is how copyright works? I'm no lawyer, but copyright is mostly reasonable to me whereas what you explain would make it unreasonable. For example say I'm using the CC-BY-SA photographs from flickr to create a great photo wall, placing the pictures in alphabetical order. How do I know that I'm not recreating a differently licensed work by somebody else, from which all the pictures were cut out? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On 17/11/2010, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 17 November 2010 01:27, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: These people would still want everything that is used by OSM under ODbL to be re-mapped from scratch. Who are These people? Nobody I know is calling for any sort of from scratch remapping. Those who want the OSMF to have the ability to switch licenses in the future without a data loss. I thought I have heard at least a couple of people on this list arguing for this and I don't see another way it could be achieved. There was also the talk about kayakking around Australia. Cheers Regards Grant ___ 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] New site about the license change
On 16 November 2010 23:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If Creative Commons had been more friendly towards the data licensing issue, a similar window could have been opened in a hypothetical CC-BY-SA 3.1; They could probably make ODbL a compatible license but that wouldn't satisfy those wanting the ability to upgrade to another free and open license, let alone all the rights granted in the current Contributor Terms. These people would still want everything that is used by OSM under ODbL to be re-mapped from scratch. Of course Creative Commons could in theory make PDDL a compatible license, or something else that supposedly satisfies the CT, but that would hurt so many other projects, authors, artists, who used a CC license. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
On 19 October 2010 18:27, Kevin Sharpe kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote: In what jurisdiction? People will be adding data worldwide. yes, anyone can extract and use your data without restriction, regardless of whether or not it's added to OSM. Is this true? If we encourage people to add data direct to OSM then is that data not covered by the OSM license? What happens if someone extracts some other details from OSM when extracting the data we supplied? Yeah, I wouldn't rely on the lack of copyright in what you make available through OSM. Rather submit the data to OSM, thus making it available under CC-By-SA / ODbL only, and at the same time on your homepage as Public Domain. Best regards ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
Hi, sorry for replying a little late, I'm not up to date, On 28 September 2010 21:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: Which would be true if I had the technical ability to render the data. I don't. However, some kind soul has written a renderer for OSM data that does it for me. See, that's exactly the problem we're having. There's this nice data set which I'd like rendered/on my Garmin/... but sadly I don't know how to process that sanely. Let's just import into OpenStreetMap because once it is there, I automatically get nice maps. OSM is not the we render anything for you because you can't do it yourself project. Statements like yours above make me even more determined to say no to imports - you openly admit that you have no desire in actually maintaining the data, you just want to use OSM as a giant rendering engine. That's really sad. You're really making no sense, sorry. If there is a street which is not in OpenStreetMap, but its data is avaiable from a compatible source then let's add it. If there's nothing better available than GPS to capture the geometry then let's use that, although likely it will be lower quality. The only reason people are adding data to OSM is because they want a complete map they can realiably use for routing, rendering and many more, often innovative, uses. Missing data in OSM is a very good (perhaps the only?) reason to add data to OSM, and this is exactly what Kevin did. What is your use case that you prefer a less complete map? It's not like he wanted a imaginary map for his computer game and abused OSM, he wanted something that OSM is supposed to be, a map of the Earth. He used the right tool to get what he wanted, at the same time helping all the other people who also need a map. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Natural person in CT 3
On 20 September 2010 23:26, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 September 2010 06:38, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote: On the other hand, if someone has two accounts, we probably can rely on the honor system. Currently it's being suggested that people create a second account so they can agree to the CTs, this doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that people should be told, since agreeing to the CTs is supposed to cover a person not an account. The Active Contributor definition covers a person, not an account. The rest of the CT is a contract covering Content which I assume is anything uploaded under the specific account, although it isn't made clear. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
On 7 September 2010 22:59, ed...@billiau.net wrote: 2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other gives them that. I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to discover that this won't extend to Australia. Assignment of Australian copyright cannot be done over the internet. There are new High Court rulings regarding digital signatures which will have to be read to confirm this, but click-through is unlikely to meet the standard required. It's the same here in Europe (or at least in Poland), a copyright assignment can only be done in writing. There's no talk about assignment in the Contributor Terms though, it's a grant of rights. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM DWG tools
On 9 September 2010 06:02, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote: I would like to make some suggestions, that otherwise seem obvious to me, but may not seem the same to others. This prompted by my recent experience with identifying OSM data on a notable third party site/source/repo. I think the DWG should have some basic, yet effective tools, with which they can quickly and easily query specific ways, but more importantly... specific changesets of a given way, wherein they can then easily render it, and then easily mash it up in a map stack(with the offending sources), allowing them to easily visually deduce similarities. If these are found, then mathematical similarities(coordinates) should be run to further substantiate the finding. I understand this would often times mean using screenshots, wherein points of the screenshots would need to be selected/designated in order to match up with OSM(projections, etc.). And the same applies to data sources, wherein a simple tools should exist that could take and extrapolate the data from these suspected sources, namely coordinates and tabular attributes, wherein they are run against OSM data and all the same instances are identified, as as all reasonable similarities. Anything, really. So long as it has a documented procedure(repeatable by third parties), then it'll suffice(for contributors/membership, and cases that may in face need/depend upon it). The FSF has recently released an auditing tool for scanning binaries for existence of GPL software in them, based on a database of signatures. I don't think this could work for map data, first of all because you'd need the vector data and these services you talk about mostly just show you bitmaps. Then, it's really easy for them to slightly modify the geometries so that no automatic scan will detect the similarity, or, if it will, it will also generate tons of false-positives. And then I don't think it would be useful, there aren't so many cases of suspected infringement and when there are, accusing someone of misusing your data is too serious to rely on fuzzy matching, you will always want to be sure. (compare visually and if possible check if changes in OSM are reflected on the other map.) That said the FSF audit tool is mainly for big companies that release software but have too many people working on it to control everything that they do, so they just scan everything that leaves is released to the public to avoid getting sued by FSF or other authors. Maybe it would be useful for OSM to have a subscription to teleatlas and Navteq vector data with the API matching all incoming data against it and alerting somebody if a suspicious large upload is detected. Google map maker and Waze could do the same thing matching contributions against OSM. BTW the AMF api has a nice call that returns all versions of a way including, where version means any state of the way's geometry, rather than just tags and nodes ids. Potlatch can use it with deleted ways, but another client could conveniently use it to visualise the history of any way. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Hi, On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems with imports. One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls can show anything) that some issues are not part of that consensus which some people claim there is (even if as they said consensus is compromise, which sounds just wrong to me). grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. It's hard to see how the ODbL can work without the latter. Risking going a little off-topic, some members of the LWG have expressed that CC-By compatibility should be a solvable problem. Any change I can imagine that would solve the CC-By compatibility would also solve ODbL compatibility, because they're both affected by this problem, no? (assuming that the relicense clause isn't there) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 2 September 2010 03:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works are included as examples of copyrightable works, and maps are included under pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Whether some or all of the OSM is a map is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that a GIS database [is] essentially a computerized map and may be entitled to protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well (see Open Records Law, GIS, and Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). I just wanted to make the point that images isn't a category much used in copyright definitions Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'd certainly argue that maps, as used in that license, include GIS databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's comment that a GIS database is essentially a computerized map as evidence. I'd argue that in a big part this may be a result of the changed meaning of the word map and not the intent of that law. Some decades ago it was very difficult to create a map that didn't include a great deal of interpretation of facts and creativity, or at least expertise, but today it's possible to extract just the factual part and store in a database with just a little bit of interpretation which can be accounted to errors or artifacts of digitisation, all this without knowing more than using a gps. I wonder how much you can abuse this to get protection of copyright, for example by building something of which your database is a map and then claiming copyright. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Maarten Deen schrieb: On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote: It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for projects of non-profit foundations. Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper. No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to license it as they please - possible with certain restrictions (like always making it available with a free and open license, as the CT states). Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later clause). CC-By-SA 2 does have this kind of provision (1.0 didn't), by stating which licenses it is comptaible with, unfortunately it is not helpful in this case because CC-By-SA seems to have been a wrong choice from the start. The ODbL with it's upgrade clause should be better. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification. What's the identity of the tag though, is it the key and value pair? Since you mention modification I suppose you mean just the key. I'm not sure if tags can be treated this way, for example the natural=wood and landuse=forest are often exchanged even though they have a different key, so after running the algorithm you may end up with both or none. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On 19 August 2010 22:05, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I don't personally feel is very cool. That's just another words to say not linking the new lincese + CT is uncool, right? There are many more people who have issues with the new CTs (me included) and don't want their past data under the CTs, same goes for NearMap. It's not trying to steer OSM, this was just NearMap's answer to the question do you agree to CTs + ODbL. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. As mentioned ODbL is probably the future but the process to get there sketched by LWG is Just Wrong ;) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: one million objects is really not something we should make a big fuss about. [...] After the Haiti earthquake, 1 million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks. So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about? Hopefully people who will make the switch decision have a different opinion. Note that a user who traces nearmap in some of their changesets can not accept the Contributor Terms partially (although they can release this data under ODbL), all of their edits are tainted to OSM under the current switchover plan. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On 25 July 2010 12:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: TimSC wrote: We should also get an official statement from OSMF that they will not assert their database rights on our contributions. Of course if OSMF were to say that they don't assert database right on any contribution made by PD people then that would be great. I am not sure if it is possible legally though, because the very nature of database right is to protect the whole database - once you deal with database right you don't deal with individual contributions or data items any more. Maybe a statement would be valid saying that the OSMF will not assert any rights (or more precisely allow usage under the terms of PDDL) on any database it releases that contains only the result of contributions by the PD users. I agree with TimSC that the statement on the wiki saying that the PD checkbox is not binding is confusing. The checkbox (button, whatever) may have no real effect in the current situation and in what the OSMF currently forsees will be the situation immediately after the switch, but it's not forever. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 24 July 2010 00:02, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote: So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group. When do we get an answer to this question set? Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers. It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own sector of the planet? Dear Liz, you say, It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss... I see two problems with this, Liz. Who are you suggesting is happy? Also, there will be no data loss. The reason it's similar to data loss is that OpenStreetMap will keep advancing very fast like it is now, while my data remaining CC-By-SA only will be left to bitrot (I'm probably not going to update it even myself, instead I may re-join OSM with a new account). An important strength of OSM is that it's a single database, not chunks you have to combine before using, and that it is up-to-date. So if OSM changes license, rather than fork under a new license, the old data will effectively be lost, it's only nitpicking saying it's not really lost. You also talk about choice, a lot of mappers will not have a choice to promote their contributions because of sources they have used (though I'm sure many of them will agree to relicense anyway because they don't read the legalese). I might be able to re-license under ODbL but not under CT. I'm wondering if the OSMF may include the Decline, but I can make my contributions available under ODbL option in the re-license question page, this would allow it to include data by the affected contributors in the new planet snapshots until another license change happens. At that point I may again be able to ask the sources I used if they agree with that license. I can not ask them to agree to a license that is not specified, and even myself I'm not comfortable being asked this. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
On 7 June 2010 21:40, Alexrk alex...@yahoo.de wrote: Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 19:36: So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would be able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a ROI on that work? Our standard reply is that you cannot expect to apply old-world business models to our new world order. There is a lot of room for really creative things; taking our map and printing an A-Z is not exactly a prime example of creativity. Tnx Frederik. You might like AZ (or Falk or whatever) or not - but please don't underestimate the creative work of cartographers. Making a good readable, fine-looking paper map is far more than installing Mapnik, choosing some color styles and pressing the render-button. Why making to much assumptions or restriction regarding the kind of business models evolving behind OSM? I think it's not a good attitude to say, we don't like or respect this or that usage of OSM because it's too old school, it's not Web 2.0 or ..geez.. someone claims his own license for his IP (damn capitalist ;-)). You're probably talking to the wrong person because Frederik is one of the PD advocates and just gave an answer to your question. But I like the Share alike rule and if you use the data produced by osm, osm wants to be able to use the result under the same license. Otherwise the situation may become like with the Map_Features cheat-mug, it's only sold locally, but at the same time nobody else in the world can produce identical mugs. In this case however I'm not sure, the CC-By-SA is not precise about what part of the work is share alike: only the data, or also the style you used? (It's not precise because it wasn't made for data obviously..) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F talks about the case where you're using only the data, not tiles, and says that then you need to state map data CC-such-and-such which implies that the rest is not necessarily CC-such-and-such. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Editing Derived Database Extracts and ODbL
On 21 May 2010 14:47, Oliver (skobbler) osm.oliver.ku...@gmx.de wrote: Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL. (I am trusting/hoping the human readable terms match the legalese.) So...my question is: how _useful_ does the derived database have to be? Does the ODbL require any usefulness to diffs, or only that the available database materials exactly match any temporary database used to create a produced work? The first question is if the adapted database needs be offered actively or passively (meaning on demand). I would assume that it only needs to be offered on demand when I try to assume the concept behind it: The intention is that if you add something to the source that is valuable for the community then the community should have the chance to integrate the addition also into the source. This will only happen if someone of the community is prepared to take the effort, which would require it to be of significant value. Unfortunately the community won't be able to integrate any substantial amount of data unless the author also accepted the Contributor Terms which they don't have to do. But, what if I do something really rude like remove all of the node IDs? The derived database might have some very useful properties, but it will be a truly royal PITA to apply back to OSM. If you keep a relation to the node IDs then these must be handed out as well. If you have deleted the node IDs then it probably becomes a Produced Work but as long as it remains in a state where you can update the temporary database with more recent OSM data then this requires a link from the OSM IDs to your elements in the temporary database. The key question here is if the temporary database keeps a link to the OSM database and then this link must be provided as well. I don't think this distinction of whether you can keep your database updated or not is anywhere in the ODbL. If it was the way you explain it, it would be really easy to make a dataset containing all the useful data and not bound by the limitations a Derived Work bears. You could even generate a new Produced Work automatically every time something changes in OpenStreetMap and never have to release your additions. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
On 22 April 2010 01:26, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This is a serious limitation and leads to many pretty maps *not* being made, or being made with non-OSM data. How is that bad? You tell me. Given a choice of (a) all maps can be made, but sharing them is a the maker's discretion versus (b) only some maps can be made, but once they are made they will always be shared I'd certainly find (a) to be more encouraging to creativity. Yeah, but it's a chicken and egg problem. You choose (a), someone makes a super complete map under a license which means we can't use it as a source for adding more data, and you get Only some maps can be made because there isn't enough data, OSM isn't useful. You choose (b) and everyone is forced to share their data and you can say more (all) maps can be made, there are more sources people can use. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] is this usage of osm a violation of cc-by-sa?
On 5 February 2010 12:05, Jonas Stein n...@jonasstein.de wrote: http://www.troiki.de/karte.jpg http://www.troiki.de/anfahrt.html if so, should someone contact troiki and explain how to use the osm maps correct. In cases like this it would be *much* better for both sides if instead having to put the name OpenStreetMap or the logo on their site they'd simply make the image a link to osm.org with mlat=mlon= set to point at the park. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
2010/1/5 Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com: 2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You give up the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue. ... Now *that* is very much not an assignment of copyright. The difference (and the reason why its not basically the same thing) is if you assigned copyright in your contribution, OSMF would be able to sue someone for violating that copyright. Yes, it's not an assignment of copyright and OSMF won't be able to sue for violation of copyright, it will only be able to sue for violation of its database rights -- the situation is still analogous to copyright assignment. Let's for simplicity assume there is no copyright on our data at all an all references to copyright in this thread are a shorthand to whatever rights the licensor has to the database and / or the data, and maybe we can stop arguing about this, I think we have agreed in a different thread that the new license + contributor terms is much the spirit of the CC-by-SA + copyright assignment, taken and applied to data. As such the Michael Meeks' text is very relevant. Personally I prefer individual contributors to be able to proect the database's license against violators, I'm only not sure if that can be implemented really. Beside the reasons, against that copyright assignment, that others have mentioned (take overs of the OSMF, etc), this model has worked really well for software for many years, companies were apparently not afraid to switch to free software and at the same time infringements have been successfully fought in court, by the individual authors (programmers) with help of organisations. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
2009/12/11 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: Some other potential points against using copyright transfer: * Given one of the arguments against CC-BY-SA is that in some jurisdictions the data isn't subject to copyright, copyright assignment of the data would be a bit questionable. * Businesses and government department are unlikely to want to assign copyright to someone else, assuming that they are even the actual copyright holder. * A lot of people won't want to do that. Quite a few people won't work on various open-source projects because they require assignment. * You'd probably need to be a lot more careful. I believe that there are some jurisdictions where signing copyright transfer paperwork for something you aren't the copyright holder of is a lot more serious than plain copyright infringement. * You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above). The downside of not requiring copyright assignment is that OSMF can't sue for copyright infringement of the data. I think the plan was to use some very liberal license for the data (as opposed to database) which would not let them sue for copyright infringement anyway, because the license basically can't be infringed? But if the foundation wants to have copyright in the data I think it's trivial for it to have some by doing *some* of the maintenance edits on behalf of the foundation or one person (or more) transferring their rights instead of everyone doing this. Out of curiosity, could the license at all work if contributors didn't have to assign copyright *nor* database rights? Apart from the fact that updating the license would require a new vote (or licensing under ODbL v1+, similar to GPLv2+), but could that be done? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Probably *something* is there in reality. Buildings, walls, hedges, a park ...? Map these objects (which obviously aren't copyrighted), so people know that someone has visited the area and mapped it in detail. If there is no blank space, it will probably attract less mappers. One such road went into someone's car port, I don't think we have barrier=car_port :) It sounds as good as the Map_Features defined values (and even better than smoothness=very_horrible), so yes, I think this works. Even a single node saying note=no road here or perhaps note=no turn here where the supposed road meets other roads should save some people time. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
2009/1/25 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: andrzej zaborowski wrote: Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading under an alike license. Now that the license changes, I would be obliged to leave even if I agree with the principles of the new license because I cannot agree to relicense data that is not my own (derived works). Depends on the facts/data in question. I'd be interested to hear what they are, but strongly suspect that they would not be deserving of any copyright protection in the first place, and isolated facts on Wikipedia are not arranged in a sufficiently structured manner to merit EU database right protection. True that the information is not structured and costs a person putting the information on OSM a bit of surveying across wikipedia. However it wouldn't be available without the effort put by wikipedians into gatherting the information. The usual example is where a WP page for a street in my city contains information such as the street was previously named X Y until date Z and I tag it with old_name=X Y or other information of not so much siginificance. There are also many pages like http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulica_Rzgowska_w_%C5%81odzi where if you click [pokaż] (under the picture box) will show you names of all streets crossed together with which crossings have traffic lights, and even names of interesting objects beside the way with postal addresses which I like to tag too. There's also a local garmin maps project in Poland that predates OSM from where a lot of data has been initially imported. Their page says they suppose their license terms are those of CC-BY-SA although asked on their mailing list they said they weren't interested in cooperation which means they wouldn't agree to relicense unlike concerned wikipedia editors might if I asked them. I'm sure there are other such cases. By the same token, I don't have any qualms about relicensing information that I've found via CC-licensed photos on geograph.org.uk. If I see a photo on Geograph of a road sign pointing west saying Whissendine 5 with a National Byway sign underneath it, I judge that the National Byway follows that road. The act of taking a (CC-licensed) photograph of that sign does not give copyright protection to the information expressed in the photo nor restrict the extraction of that information, because the photographer has not invested any creative/original work in placing the sign there. I'm no lawyer but I thought that would be a bit in the grey area already, especially considering that value of the photograph is entirely in the information it contains (because it's not posted on a family pictures site). (Consumers of OSM data are a different matter because in most cases, including Wikipedia, collective work provisions apply.) Right. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com: Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already? What if the part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the passing of new versions without explicit agreement? I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends. AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you expose it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the license as it evolved. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
