Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Mine is a UK-centric view, but the import (provided that by import you include the incorporation of information) from other sources, not purely the mechanical transfer of data) of other data (I.e. OS) is hugely improving the quality of the mapping available. The map is progressing much faster than would otherwise be the case. It's loss would significantly, in my view, reduce the value of the map. OK, so transferring data isn't as academically pleasing as gaining a GPS trace and basing a map on that, but I don't see how a road in OSM from OS data is worse than no road being present. So for me, yes, there is huge value in being able to incorporate other data into the maps. This has let me develop a pretty good area of mapping of natural features that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to produce in a sensible time frame. So, in summary, "well said John". Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Mrtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:14:59 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Reply-To: m...@koppenhoefer.com, "Licensing and other legal discussions." Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license 2010/9/28 John Smith : > On 28 September 2010 21:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much >> government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal answer >> is a clear no; because to me, the value of imported data is very small, >> almost neglibile compared to data contributed by members. > > How many more people have to express an opinion that differs to yours > before you will accept the fact that people do want the ability to > import data, not to mention the ability to keep existing work. Most of the mappers I know are not fond of imports. You can mostly just import data that is already available elsewhere. Data that gets imported without a vivid community is doomed to get old and useless. People care much more for their "own" data then for imported data. Frederik is not alone with his statement, there is a big community behind him that sees this similar. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
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. The other advantage is that as I develop an area to include footpaths they also appear. Thank you for categorising my many hours of input as mindless. We have rather gone off topic of the legal questions of whether the new licences/CTs allow import, and how the affect things. On this topic, to parody someone else's acronyms, I am an Intellectual Property lawyer, and have strong views, but there seems little point in contributing based on the treatment given to people making correct, but unpopular points (I.e. They're ignored). Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Richard Fairhurst Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:49:08 To: Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Kevin Cordina wrote: > As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview > data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering > nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so > it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. If you want a nameless map of streets and natural features, just go straight to the source and use OS VectorMap District. It's complete, consistent, reliable, and has a sane licence. There's absolutely no point involving OSM. I'm speaking from some experience here. Every month for our magazine I produce a set of maps from OS OpenData (in this case Meridian2 rather than VMD, because we're working at roughly 1:70,000 and Meridian2 is better suited for that). I did once experiment with using OSM data. It was really painful. OSM's strength is in its rich data. Mindless tracing from OS StreetView, as others have said, destroys the motivation of others to make the data rich. I've seen this in Worcester, where an excellent quality map advancing at moderate speed has now largely drawn to a halt after some thoughtless OS tracing. No-one gains from this. OSM gets a worse map in the medium (not even long) term. Prospective users of the map data don't gain because they could have used OS anyway. I guess the one use-case is short-term use in OSM-derived products (such as Garmin .img files), but if one-tenth the effort spent on tracing had been spent on a utility to intelligently merge OSM with A.N.Other source without uploading it, that'd be much more sane. OS StreetView is a useful tool in moderation, for checking your own surveying and for filling in little gaps here and there. To get back to the original point, I support efforts to make the Contributor Terms compatible with this and other attribution-only licences. But some of the mindless tracing really makes me weep. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5580709.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final decision on choice needs to be made now. Practice has clearly changed since 2008. If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning when the OS data was released that it was incompatible? Kevin --Original Message-- From: Richard Fairhurst Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 29 Sep 2010 12:22 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license kevin wrote: > The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible > with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. Richard [1] http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5583459.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
That is only true if 100% of the data is removed. My statement is correct in terms of the data in the database at the time the new licence is applied. If there is any residual data then the new licence has to be dictated by the data source licence, otherwise there is a breach of the source licence. There seems to be consensus that removing all OS (for instance) derived data will be impossible, therefore there needs to be compatibility or a breach. Kevin --Original Message-- From: Andy Allan Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 29 Sep 2010 12:40 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Kevin Cordina wrote: > The OS are going to have to dictate the licence because their data is now in > OSM and unless you remove it totally, the new licence will have to be > compatible with the terms it was added under. Kevin, I think you've missed a large part of this process. It's quite well known that data may need to be removed. Nobody gets to "dictate the license" simply by having data already in OSM. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
So a road-network in OSM based on OS information would have value as it would enable OSM's use as a map source for a routing product. Your first and second paragraphs are therefore inconsistent, unless you don't think a routeable map from OSM would be a good thing. As with any community we all have differing views. What is important in my eyes is that (a) the LWG and OSMF take the overall community's view into account and the members disregard any personal view, and (b) that there is a very clear (and legally sound) description of the effect of the new licence when the time comes to vote so we can make an informed decision which way to vote based on the effect it will have. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Michael Barabanov Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:18:56 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license ___ 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] OS Opendata & the new license
I thought I had read that there would be a second phase vote at the time of switch over based on a full understanding of data loss and effect. I can't now find that reference so I may have imagined it. What is happening with the revisions to the CTs? Will we have to accept/decline again? I have accepted the first version, but aren't they now changing? Kevin --Original Message-- From: Frederik Ramm To: ke...@cordina.org.uk To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 1 Oct 2010 08:37 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Kevin, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: > (b) that there is a very clear (and legally sound) description of the > effect of the new licence when the time comes to vote so we can make > an informed decision which way to vote based on the effect it will > have. I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is already decided; further votes are not planned. All mappers will be asked to agree to the Contributor Terms, thereby effectively agreeing to the relicensing. At that point they have the option to not agree, in which case OSMF will stop distributing their data; but this is not a vote, just an individual opt-in. Bye Frederik Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Apologies, I managed to attribute someone else's comment to you, thereby misrepresenting your view. Good to see some support for the import of data. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Michael Barabanov Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:27:45 To: ; Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license _my_ first and second paragraphs? there was only one from me. Maybe what I wrote was too concise. My point is that currently one needs to import; otherwise it's not routable. Combining at rendering time doesn't cut it. On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:08 AM, wrote: > So a road-network in OSM based on OS information would have value as it > would enable OSM's use as a map source for a routing product. > > Your first and second paragraphs are therefore inconsistent, unless you > don't think a routeable map from OSM would be a good thing. > > As with any community we all have differing views. What is important in my > eyes is that (a) the LWG and OSMF take the overall community's view into > account and the members disregard any personal view, and (b) that there is a > very clear (and legally sound) description of the effect of the new licence > when the time comes to vote so we can make an informed decision which way to > vote based on the effect it will have. > > Kevin > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Barabanov > Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:18:56 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." > > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license > >___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
But isn't the bit that's causing the bulk of the discussion a limited part of the CTs, not ODbL per se? It strikes me as two issues - changing to ODbL and, separately, the inclusion of a clause in the CTs allowing a future unspecified relicensing by the OSMF. The two aren't, necessarily, interlinked. I haven't heard any fundamental objection to moving to ODbL, but lots of objections to the CTs. Unfortunately the two seem to be being treated as one. Kevin --Original Message-- From: Richard Fairhurst Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: t...@openstreetmap.org Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 16 Nov 2010 10:45 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change [follow-ups to legal-talk, where this thread really should have started] Kevin Peat wrote: > Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most > organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares, > it doesn't devalue our efforts one cent. I can't see how changing > to an unproven license can possibly be worth fragmenting the > project. There'll be some fragmentation whatever happens. I've no doubt that, as you suggest, some people will leave if OSM moves to ODbL. Conversely, if OSM resolved to stick with CC-BY-SA then I'd leave as would several others. There is no "let's just carry on as at present" option. Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ 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
The difference in my mind between the CTs and the ODbL is the provision that allows the license to be changed at a later date, potentially without further approval of the license. I don't believe this in ODbL. Without getting into any consideration of the need for the clause, my purely legal concern is that this is a hugely broad rights grant and it's far from clear to me how any data, other than completely newly sourced and never before licenced can comply with it. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Anthony Sender: dipie...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:33:02 To: ; Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:23 AM, wrote: > It strikes me as two issues - changing to ODbL and, separately, the inclusion > of a > clause in the CTs allowing a future unspecified relicensing by the OSMF. The > two > aren't, necessarily, interlinked. And for some reason the part about the DbCL gets swept under the rug and ignored. The clause in the CTs which is now causing so much trouble is: "You hereby 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. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees." And yet the DbCL, which isn't even mentioned, contains a clause which reads: "The Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work." > I haven't heard any fundamental objection to moving to ODbL ODbL does have a couple fundamental flaws compared to CC-BY-SA. It requires distribution of the underlying database when distributing a work produced from the database, and it allows proprietary maps to be produced from ODbL databases. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Looks good. My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any "free and open" licence. Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed as those restrictions could be broken in the future. Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed. As I said in another thread, I think there is a big difference between "free and open" and "similar" as per ODbL. It would be hard to argue that a hypothetical licence that contradicted a term of ODbL was similar, but it could well still be free and open. Since ODbL is free and open any similar licence must arguably also be free and open, so I see the similar requirement as tighter. I see a few solutions (a) remove the reference totally, but assuming the clause was included for a good reason this seems unlikely, (b) mirror the "similar" language which should ease concerns about losing control, (c) add a requirement that somehow allows the owner of data to object to a licence change to their data and withdraw it from a relicensed OSM (complex and possibly impractical). Kevin --Original Message-- From: Richard Weait Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 17 Nov 2010 02:30 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2 There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb Various draft versions have been around for a while. I think we've improved the CT with each revision. LWG have had some wonderful suggestions from members of the community that are incorporated in the current draft. On the other hand it feels like there have been more folks with criticisms of CT v1.0 than there are folks who have taken the time to offer a patch. So I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the contributor terms? Is this an improvement? What aspects address your concerns regarding previous versions? What aspects could be further improved and how? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
The distinction 80n makes is the fundamental one to me and where the problems lie. There are two entities here that need to be considered separately. 1) The contributors, their contributions, and the applicable licence. 2) OSMF and the general running of OSM, where not related to licensing of data. I absolutely agree that OSMF needs freedom to change things in the future and it would be wrong if a minor contributor from today prevented a change in ten years after they'd left. On this I agree with Frederik. However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. The contributors make their data available on particular terms, and wish to understand them. Giving an indeterminate body (the future contributors) the power to change those terms means we can never know the details of the licence that our data will be licensed under. It is not far short of a straight assignment as the contributor loses control. I think the two issues need separating, with the ability to change the licence remaining solely in the hands of the contributor of each bit of data, and the running of OSMF in the hands of active people at the time. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: 80n <80n...@gmail.com> Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 19:24:29 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Cc: pec...@gmail.com; Open Street Map mailing list; Serge Wroclawski Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
I agree, but this is still a great deal of freedom. A PD licence would be free and open, but is a very different beast to ODBL. There is therefore the scope to very significantly alter the license without the direct agreement of a contributor to the specific terms. K Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:25:23 To: Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag 80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: > So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on > the level on which you are lookign for it. > > Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the > license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of "active contributor" without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Nice post. Your comparison with contributions of effort to voluntary organisations is a good one, and has changed my view on the inclusion of a clause that allows the licence to be changed. With a dose of AGF, and a removal of my lawyer hat, I see the point and that it really should not be an issue for contributors. You're right, we're giving effort to the project, here it's in the form of information, not helping build a community hall, but that doesn't change the principle. I still have reservations about whether the change ability means the CTs are compatible with other the licences of other data sources from which data may be sourced, but that is a legal one, not a policy one on which now agree with you. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:38:50 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag Simon, Simon Ward wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. > > The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote: "I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of "free license", but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again." I.e. he said he was "afraid" that somehow the "PDists" had achieved something (why he wrote "all over again" I don't know). My point is that the license that is now on the table, ODbL, is not a PD license. Anyone who would like OSM to be a PD project has not "achieved" something. The Contributor Terms provide a way for future generations of "PDists", "Share-Alike-Ists" and whatnot in OSM to take the project's fate in their hands, battle it out, discuss it, whatever. This is good; it is not a win for anyone on any side in the license debate. (The best thing is that nobody loses either.) I reject outright the claim that the Contributor Terms "effectively change the license". They leave a door open for future improvements, for an adaptation to changed circumstances or a changed mood in the community. But that is just a chance for change, not a change in itself, and any future change is possible only under strict rules. If you take an extremely individualist view then you will say: This is my data, I have contributed it, and I want to have every say in how it is used. This is not practical; you will always have to grant broad, general rights about your contribution to the project or downstream users. This is what happens today where you choose a license. In the future we expect you to not choose one particular license, but instead allow OSMF, together with the active project members of OSM, to choose a suitable license within certain constraints. In my eyes, this is not much different from the license upgrade clause in ODbL itself, only that the decision will in the hands of the future project, rather than in the hands of an elect few writers of the next license version. I think that it is morally very questionable to try and pre-emptively override a future 2/3 majority of active people in OSM. Those will be the people who shape, who maintain, who advance OSM, and they should have every freedom to decide what their project does; when we tell them that "you cannot do X even if all of you are in favour", then "X" had better be the absolute essence without which OSM cannot continue under any circumstances. I think that "you cannot choose a license that is not free and open" matches this absolute essence pretty well. Now if someone says: "I have firm beliefs and even if OSM in the future has 10 million active mappers and 2/3 of them decide they want a license that I don't like then I want to withdraw my contribution at that point" (and that's what it boils down to - if we have no license change clause in the CT then you will have to be asked at that point) - then that is a very individualistic view; a view in which your data always remains yours, and never fully becomes part of the whole; a view in which your contribution is always provisional, in which you only "lend" the project something but not "give". If you spend your time in, say, the local cycle campaign, improving the lot of cyclists, working long hours for many years, but then they snuggle up to a political party you don't like, then you can leave - but what you have contributed all those years will not be in vain, the effects will remain and be useful. Many people s
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
On 14 August 2010 10:14, Francis Davey wrote: > On 14 August 2010 10:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data > > under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data > > but only for works? > > There may be institutional reasons for it (eg "we always use this > licence"). > > > It seems to me that use of these licenses by governments started about the time osm decided they were no good and continues to accelerate. I also find it very odd that this project with extremely limited legal resources feels like it knows better than the large legal teams that governments and state bodies have. If governments release large amounts of data under these licenses and they turn out to not offer the correct protection then wouldn't they just change the law so they do work? Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 25 August 2010 08:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest > of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody > who is in OSM in 10 years' time. > > I find this oft-repeated argument to be totally bogus. It's like saying that I shouldn't paint my house because the person who owns it in 10 years time might not like it. If OSMers in 2020 don't like the license they are free to change it or to start a new project just as people are today. We should make a decision on what seems like the best choice as we see it today not what someone may want in 10 years time. I am quite happy for OSMF to have the power to upgrade to newer versions of ODBL as the license matures to save all this hassle again but there should be some sensible limits on what the OSMF can do otherwise it is open to abuse. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 26 August 2010 01:05, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: > > > > Starting a new project would be like rebuilding the whole house, just to > make it a new color. The upgrade clause is like repainting the house, but > restricting this to only very few colors, might make a future owner unhappy. > > Well I think someone wanting a PD project would need to start from scratch anyway as it would be hard for them to demonstrate that any existing data wasn't encumbered with other licenses given the wide use of imports and tracing in lots of countries. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
But isn't mapping based on third-party data (I.e. The aerial imaging you mention) precisely the point of this discussion? It may not be possible under the proposed new CTs/licence. To my mind there is no difference between an automatic import of data and a human copying from one source to another. Kevin - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: John Smith Cc: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 17:45:18 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license 2010/9/28 John Smith : > On 29 September 2010 02:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> OK, lets not confuse issues here, one is to perform the import, the >> other is maintenance and updates of the data. > > How is maintenance of imported data any different than maintenance of > non-imported data? thing is if you have non-imported data, there is usually someone who is caring for it. If you do imports, there might be someone but mostly is probably not, otherwise you wouldn't be constrained to make the import. Generally it is easier to find people interested in mapping from scratch (or a basic skeleton) than people interested in fixing an imported mess/data. I know that in some areas with low population density it is hard to map, and it is surely much easier in central Europe, so if good sources are available I would also try to get hand on them. On the other hand in my area (we also got sufficiently nice aerial imagery since May this year, covering the whole country) I prefer to map stuff myself with the other folk of the community. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009. Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information. This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email. Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
I see the point, but am not convinced. I think categorising the OS data as 'crap' is a huge exaggeration. Yes, there are errors, but in the general scheme of things are minor. This is also where the source tags come in handy. A user who is experienced enough to want to add the extra detail is also likely experienced enough to spot the OS source tag and realise a survey would benefit the data. As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. A fundamental difference arises based on the intended use - my use is better served by better geographic coverage, without the subtleties, and therefore tracing/importing is valuable to me. Kevin - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: ke...@cordina.org.uk ; Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 17:55:24 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: > OK, so transferring data isn't as academically pleasing as gaining a GPS > trace and basing a map on that, but I don't see how a road in OSM from OS > data is worse than no road being present. > Gathering data for OSM on the ground is so much more than just the track of a road. When someone just traces the OS data with the names it superficially looks complete, but all of the additional data that a survey would bring is missing and that is where much of the value comes from. This 'complete' look puts off other OSMers so the net result is long-lasting, crap quality data with all of the OS errors and omissions and no added detail. Speed of completion comes a poor second to real quality in my mind. There are a few useful imports such as boundary data which are not available from a survey. Using OS Locator to compare with OSM to help establish what is missing is useful too, but I believe that should lead to a survey to add anything to OSM. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009. Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information. This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email. Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
If the OS data is OK, then how can something that is essentially the same not be OK. If your point is that the data is incomplete, then there can be no debate. But the quality of the data that is there is the same as the OS data. 120 errors in road names out of how many roads, and how are those 'errors' categorised? It depends what you compare the data to. As you say the OS data suits my needs. However there seems to be a view that because "you aim higher" my low-level of contribution shouldn't be allowed and are damaging the project. I find this odd and in contrast to the community nature of OSM. Everything I do is clearly tagged with the source, so please do come along, survey, correct and add to it. Everyone is then happy. I fail to see why my contribution that has a direct and measurable impact on the use of the project, shouldn't be done _in case_ it puts someone off improving it further. Kevin - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 18:56:57 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license To be clear, I did not describe OS data as crap, I described the *quality* of data only based on OS StreetView with no extra surveyed data as crap. So you think that only experienced OSmers add shops, churches, schools, footpaths, cycletracks ... ? In the Hull area there are about 120 roads with the wrong names on OS StreetView and OS Locator. OS StreetView is very far from the best quality OS data - it has for example approximations for buildings, it has most of the excellent OS detail removed and is laid out as a print layer. OS OpenData may suit your needs, but I aim higher. Kevin Cordina wrote: > I see the point, but am not convinced. > I think categorising the OS data as 'crap' is a huge exaggeration. Yes, there > are errors, but in the general scheme of things are minor. > > This is also where the source tags come in handy. A user who is experienced > enough to want to add the extra detail is also likely experienced enough to > spot the OS source tag and realise a survey would benefit the data. > As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview data > would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering nameless maps of > streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so it is not a fair assumption > that more data = more value. > > A fundamental difference arises based on the intended use - my use is better > served by better geographic coverage, without the subtleties, and therefore > tracing/importing is valuable to me. > > Kevin > > > > - Original Message - > From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org > > To: ke...@cordina.org.uk ; Licensing and other legal > discussions. > Sent: Tue Sep 28 17:55:24 2010 > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license > > ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: > >> OK, so transferring data isn't as academically pleasing as gaining a GPS >> trace and basing a map on that, but I don't see how a road in OSM from OS >> data is worse than no road being present. >> >> > Gathering data for OSM on the ground is so much more than just the track > of a road. When someone just traces the OS data with the names it > superficially looks complete, but all of the additional data that a > survey would bring is missing and that is where much of the value comes > from. This 'complete' look puts off other OSMers so the net result is > long-lasting, crap quality data with all of the OS errors and omissions > and no added detail. Speed of completion comes a poor second to real > quality in my mind. > > There are a few useful imports such as boundary data which are not > available from a survey. Using OS Locator to compare with OSM to help > establish what is missing is useful too, but I believe that should lead > to a survey to add anything to OSM. > > -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Please do not misrepresent what I have said and suggest I have said something I haven't. I absolutely intend to maintain the data I enter. The OS data provides me (and OSM in general) a starting point, from which I can build a more complete data set. Perhaps one day I'll build something that meets your expectations, but then again perhaps not as my needs are different. Hopefully there is some spillover from my contributions to other's needs. I still disagree that the OS data is "Rubbish". It seems to serve the many commercial organisations that use it perfectly well. Kevin - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: ke...@cordina.org.uk ; Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 20:19:32 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license 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. We must really endeavour to better enable people to draw in non-OSM data at the rendering stage so that they don't feel tempted to drop their rubbish into OSM just so that they get a nice map rendered. 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 Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009. Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information. This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email. Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
The OS are going to have to dictate the licence because their data is now in OSM and unless you remove it totally, the new licence will have to be compatible with the terms it was added under. - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 20:27:45 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Hi, Dave F. wrote: >> When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? >> Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth >> your time > > No I have not & you know that. > > Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been unable > to answer. The post which I replied to did not contain a single question, Your general question was whether OS data is interoperable with OdbL+CT (you asked whether somebody could "confirm" or "deny" that); in further posts you made it clear that you would find it "sad" and "hard to conceive" if it were not so. I cannot confirm or deny your original question; but I wanted to say that it is in no way "sad" or "hard to conceive" if the license that OSM chooses is not compatible with a handful of government data licenses around the world. We are certainly not going to let the OS dictate the license we choose for our data. 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 Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009. Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information. This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email. Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Well said. - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed Sep 29 10:01:33 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Surely we can all agree to differ about whether data imports are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The legal-talk mailing list is not really the place for such a discussion. Most people will say 'it depends on the particular data being added' and we could perhaps leave it at that. What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. We as a community choose what kind of map we want to create, and then need to choose a licence to support that choice. At the moment the tail seems to be wagging the dog. Some people want to import data, some don't. Both groups need to be supported. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009. Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information. This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email. Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 7 October 2010 10:43, Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/07/2010 10:04 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > >> Rob Myers writes: >> > I'm coming to the conclusion that "individual contributor of original data >> to OSM" and "institutional importer of a third party database" should be >> treated differently, and possibly that OSM should do the Debian thing of >> having different repositories for different classes of resource. The end >> result can still be BY-SA map tiles... >> > > Couldn't the same thing be achieved by having the license at the object level instead so I could mark my own surveyed data as PD while externally sourced objects (eg. OS data) would have the appropriate license attached? Data users could then make the decision on what data to pull out based on the license they want to apply to their product. This would also allow the project to use non-commercial sources and the like just marking the objects with the appropriate licenses. I guess this is also 80n's point re. different licenses coexisting in the same project. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
>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? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
>Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you
trying to restrict it?
We want the data to be available without restriction.
>Do you want to be able to extract data from OSM and combine it with your
data?
Possibly... Let me give you some examples;
Our data relates to the location and capabilities of electric vehicle
charging locations ("charge points"). Imagine a scenario where we have added
details of the charge point that located in a parking lot that already
recorded in OSM. Then, a third party extracts the charge point data AND the
parking lot data. Presumably, the parking lot data is covered by the OSM
license and not our license (i.e. the third party cannot use it without
restriction).
In another scenario, imagine an OSM contributor adds the charge point data
to OSM. Presumably, this data is covered by the OSM license not ours.
The fundamental issue for us is that we are trying to encourage the charge
point industry to abandon the 20+ proprietary and closed databases that
exist today and support a single open database. As far as I can see, the OSM
licenses are unsuitable for this.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
Many thanks for your comments Sam. Unfortunately, unless we allow the current developers to use the data without restriction then they will never support an open database. I think the solution is to host the database on sourceforge with an PDDL license and then automatically upload the data to OSM. My hope would be that contributors maintain the open database so that everyone benefits in future. All the best, Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On 8 April 2011 11:38, Nick Hocking wrote: > Hi Ed, > > "transfer rights to the OSMF" > > I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions > need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current > situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding > OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions. > > The contributors aren't doing anything it is the OSMF that is holding the data to ransom. > This need to be finalised sooner rather than later so that OSM mapping can > recommence. > The current license has worked well for many years with significant transgressors (Google, Waze et al) respecting it. I would prefer OSM worked with Creative Commons on 4.0 rather than deleting contributions. > As to which licence we run under, it doesn't matter to me at all, since I > believe it should be public domain anyway. I'll leave that for others to > bicker about but full rights to the data by the project is essential, in my > opinion. > > > I read recently (not sure if true) that Libreoffice in their "fork" from Openoffice had abandoned CT's and seen a big increase in contributors. I wonder if introducing CT's will have the opposite impact on OSM. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Permissibility of incorporating parts of an address from a business' website
On 25 April 2013 11:14, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > The folks who drafted the EU DB directive most likely were not aware that > in a > near future, a person from a country A could put data about country B in a > DB > inside a computer in a country C... > > But in their world view there will only be one country in the future so this short-term problem goes away ;) Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
On my mobile browser the attribution is between the Questions & Feedback links and the Get Mozilla Updates box near the bottom of the page. It reads "Maps © by MapBox and OpenStreetMap contributors"-Kevin From: Simon PooleSent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:12 PMTo: Martin Koppenhoefer; Licensing and other legal discussions.Reply To: Licensing and other legal discussions.Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements Am 14.01.2014 14:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2014/1/14 Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so far that we want OSM attribution on "everything" :-) it is one click away: That it likely simply a glitch, the desktop version still has a large map at the top of the screen, attribution and all. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] White Paper on ODbL and OSM
Attached please find a link to a blog post on the Spatial Law and Policy blog that discusses a White Paper prepared by the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy on the ODbL and the use of OSM data. The blog post contains a link to the paper. http://spatiallaw.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-odbl-and-openstreetmap-analysis-and.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
