Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
Russ, On 05/06/11 07:25, Russ Nelson wrote: Would you really say that personally, as far as your contributions are concerned, you consider your I agree click to be legally void because it happened under duress? No, I'm saying that *everyone's* agreement is invalid because it was made under duress. If your agreement to the CT is invalid was made under duress - which I doubt -, then you could use that reasoning to nullify the contract that you have signed. Which would mean that you do not allow OSMF to distribute your data. Which they would then comply with, by removing all your data. And then you would say - what? That they are forced to distribute your data under the terms *you* want, and choosing to not distribute them would constitute an act of violence, threat, or pressure against your person (quote from Duress wikipedia article)? That sounds rather unbelievable to me. At no point has OSM/OSMF ever given you a promise to distribute your data in any form. They could, at any time, have said: Oh well, we'll scale back and do Europe only in the future or we're dropping all POIs from our data base and focus on roads, or whatever. From time to time I get emails from various service providers (eg PayPal) telling me: We're changing our terms and conditions... please click here to agree or so. With the implication that they will not continue to provide services to me unless I agree to their (unilateral) change of terms. Would you say that such an agreement happens under duress as well? No, because the initial TC says how they will be changed in the future. And if the initial TC wouldn's say that Paypal can change them, then they would forever be bound to what I signed up to? And when they say agree to our new terms or we'll have to terminate your service then that is putting me under duress? - Now I know very little about the US legal system. Maybe it is like that there. But I can assure you it isn't like that in Germany. Is it not rather like this: You have created data that OSMF offers to distribute for free via their infrastructure; now they're changing their terms and they only continue to offer this service if you agree to the changed terms? That's a great theory; where was that offer documented? It wasn't of course; this is just a rhetorical question intended to point out that you're making shit up. Excuse me? I just want to map; and I don't want to worry that my contributions are going to be deleted just because somebody touched something before or after I touched it. A friend of mine recently did a lot of mapping which was then removed by someone else in preparation for an import. Shit happens. The fact that I have zero confidence in this not happening says that the solution simply isn't working. I think it would not be prudent to use your personal perception of something as an indicator of whether it is or isn't working; the discussion above seems to show that your perception of reality is liable to warping. Relicensing is a bad, bad, bad idea. It has imposed large costs (in terms of people spending time fighting against the relicensing or trying to figure out how to make relicensing work). Nobody knows if the OdBL will actually solve the problem that is causing the relicensing. Yes, I think that the big step forward is the CT, and consider ODbL the less important of the pair. The CT will for the first time make the agreement between mappers and OSMF explicit, so that discussions like the one above will not be necessary in the future. Even if we were to remain with CC-BY-SA, we must at least push through with the CT. We're running beta software in production. Whereas in all other areas of OSM, we're running, what, the daily SVN snapshot? It's just a bad, bad, bad idea, and the fact that the OSMF *continues* to press on in the face of objections gives me reason to not trust their wisdom. The alternative would be to continue using CC-BY-SA in the face of objections, and continue to misleading users about the effectiveness of the license. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
On 6 May 2011 22:16, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The alternative would be to continue using CC-BY-SA in the face of objections, and continue to misleading users about the effectiveness of the license. Still this sad tired old line, please come up with new FUD to keep things interesting. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
Russ Nelson writes: I just want to map; And as RichardF pointed out on IRC, if that's REALLY what I want, then I ought to STFU, and leave the worrying to other people since I have enough things to worry about, like whether my local 6 to the pixel imagery is good enough (eat my dust!), I'm going to hope and pray and trust that this misbegotten relicensing project won't screw us over too badly, just live with it, and write run-on sentences whenever possible. My edits are PD, I've agreed to the OdBL and the CT, and that's all I have to say from now on. --- That's NOT a run-on sentence, although the first comma might be a semicolon and there might be a comma before the first and, although that depends on which style guide you're reading. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
2011/5/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: A friend of mine recently did a lot of mapping which was then removed by someone else in preparation for an import. Shit happens. really? Where was that? Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
Russ, (I'm trying to move this over to legal-talk because you are expressing an interesting legal viewpoint): On 05/05/11 06:27, Russ Nelson wrote: I'm wondering on what data you come to that conclusion? Because people have clicked ok on the license change and CTs? And yet there is no agreement and no contract. The OSMF has made it clear: you agree, or we delete your data and throw it into the dustbin of history. An agreement made under duress is no agreement at all. So, yes, do please tell me where you're getting your data from, because if you're counting my click, you can discount it. Would you really say that personally, as far as your contributions are concerned, you consider your I agree click to be legally void because it happened under duress? It would be interesting to hear a lawyer's perspective on that. From time to time I get emails from various service providers (eg PayPal) telling me: We're changing our terms and conditions... please click here to agree or so. With the implication that they will not continue to provide services to me unless I agree to their (unilateral) change of terms. Would you say that such an agreement happens under duress as well? Is it not rather like this: You have created data that OSMF offers to distribute for free via their infrastructure; now they're changing their terms and they only continue to offer this service if you agree to the changed terms? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
Frederik Ramm writes: On 05/05/11 06:27, Russ Nelson wrote: I'm wondering on what data you come to that conclusion? Because people have clicked ok on the license change and CTs? And yet there is no agreement and no contract. The OSMF has made it clear: you agree, or we delete your data and throw it into the dustbin of history. An agreement made under duress is no agreement at all. So, yes, do please tell me where you're getting your data from, because if you're counting my click, you can discount it. Would you really say that personally, as far as your contributions are concerned, you consider your I agree click to be legally void because it happened under duress? No, I'm saying that *everyone's* agreement is invalid because it was made under duress. From time to time I get emails from various service providers (eg PayPal) telling me: We're changing our terms and conditions... please click here to agree or so. With the implication that they will not continue to provide services to me unless I agree to their (unilateral) change of terms. Would you say that such an agreement happens under duress as well? No, because the initial TC says how they will be changed in the future. Is it not rather like this: You have created data that OSMF offers to distribute for free via their infrastructure; now they're changing their terms and they only continue to offer this service if you agree to the changed terms? That's a great theory; where was that offer documented? It wasn't of course; this is just a rhetorical question intended to point out that you're making shit up. The problem here is what the problem has *always* been: that the solution (changing the license) is worse than the problem (a license that people speculate may not work). I just want to map; and I don't want to worry that my contributions are going to be deleted just because somebody touched something before or after I touched it. The fact that I have zero confidence in this not happening says that the solution simply isn't working. Relicensing is a bad, bad, bad idea. It has imposed large costs (in terms of people spending time fighting against the relicensing or trying to figure out how to make relicensing work). Nobody knows if the OdBL will actually solve the problem that is causing the relicensing. We're running beta software in production. It's just a bad, bad, bad idea, and the fact that the OSMF *continues* to press on in the face of objections gives me reason to not trust their wisdom. Which makes me worry that my contributions might all go for naught at some point in the future. It's group-think. The emperor has no clothes, and there are no little kids around to say Gee, this relicensing thing ... maybe it's not such a good idea? It's too late. You have to live with CC-By-SA, even if it's not perfect. It's all you've got. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
On 6 May 2011 15:25, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: has no clothes, and there are no little kids around to say Gee, this relicensing thing ... maybe it's not such a good idea? Plenty of people have been pointing this out, but those that should be listening aren't and as a result OSM has gone from almost exponential growth to stagnant growth to negative growth... The fact that people are turning away from OSM should be a huge wake up call, but sadly no one is listening... It's too late. You have to live with CC-By-SA, even if it's not perfect. It's all you've got. From what I gather about the ODBL, mind you I can't get consistent views on it which should be a big red flag, it's worst in general for those using the data, at present you only have to care about copyright, in future you will most likely have to get contracts with end users to be in line with the ODBL, to me this is not only going backwards, but it puts even more onus on people wanting to use OSM data to the point of being rediculous... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
