Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:41:11AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner > which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who one > would presume understands these things. > > And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing > _against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF. > > What on earth is going on? Review. Does a member of the board have to agree just because they are on the board? If the licence has flaws, they really should be ironed out if at all possible before the licence change is progressed. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
Hi, Gustav Foseid wrote: > The database directive does not stop you from making a geographic database, > rendering it as a map and then releasing it under something like CC0. I am a > bit unsure what kind of restriction the database directive could possibly > have placed on that map. Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the original database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not using your own database but you are (again) using the database compiled by the original owner, so you need his permission to use it. This is - I thought - absolutely independent of the channel through which you received the original database. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
> Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer = to a > situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to > something where only part of it is.=20 A collective work includes the untransformed work. A derivative work adapts it in some way. One can claim copyright on either (IIRC), but as a pragmatic move alternative licences tend to ignore collective works. > Produced Works are a subclass of the > latter, not a new class at all. The data component is still copyleft, a= nd a > stronger copyleft than CC-BY-SA gives, but other independently sourced > components may not be. Is this to handle the way people wish layers to work? - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
Hi Richard Fairhurst wrote: > FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need > rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be > public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD - > because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision that dictates that the > data is still copyleft). If there is any restriction on a work, it isn't PD. I always thought that the reverse engineering provision would apply automatically through the database directive, so even if we allowed a Produced Work to be PD then reassembling them into a database would still make that database protected, but this was perhaps seen too much through European eyes. Sadly, this makes it impossible to create a derived product from OSM-old and OSM-new because it could not be CC-BY-SA with that added restriction. So my before-after slippy map would have to be layered application. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
80n, > Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the > contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, called > Produced Works, that are not share alike. In my opinion, OSM's value is almost entirely in its being a database. If OSM were not a database, then any meaningful use of OSM I could think of would first require converting it into one! A license that protects this core capacity and makes sure that OSM data, when published/used/whatever as a database, remains free, does IMHO indeed capture the essential bit without wasting energy on the fringes. You are right in saying that a "Produced Work" under ODbL does not carry the same restrictions as many believe it now has under CC-BY-SA, but I fail to see the use of implementing such restrictions. In my eyes, there is nothing worth "protecting" in a "Produced Work" when our data has lost its essential capability of being accessed as a database. And the essential capability of database-ness is protected, as Richard pointed out, even if the data should be conveyed by means of a Produced Work. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
80n wrote: > Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives > the contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, > called Produced Works, that are not share alike. No. This is really, really important. The concept of a "Produced Work" is not ODbL magically exempting more works from copyleft. Produced Works is simply ODbL's effort to _define_ something that exists in all copyleft licences. It isn't a new class of restriction. * CC-BY-SA uses two terms to describe how work "uses" the original: Derivative Work and Collective Work. * ODbL uses three terms: Derivative Database, Produced Work and Collective Database. Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer to a situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to something where only part of it is. Produced Works are a subclass of the latter, not a new class at all. The data component is still copyleft, and a stronger copyleft than CC-BY-SA gives, but other independently sourced components may not be. We have this at the moment. Think of CloudMade's* routing application. Its raison d'etre is OSM data, and anything derived from that is theoretically copyleft (not, ahem, that CC-BY-SA requires it to be contributed back). But no-one is suggesting that CloudMade have to release their code under CC-BY-SA. The GPL is similar. If you compile a program with GCC, the binary contains all the optimisations that are probably the most "creative" aspect of GCC, so in moral terms it could be considered a derivative. But no-one's suggesting your code therefore has to be GPLed. ODbL just uses a new term to help firm up the boundaries. The fact we're still arguing five years on (cf flosm.de) about what's derivative and collective when CC-BY-SA is applied to data shows how better terminology is desperately needed. FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD - because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision that dictates that the data is still copyleft). If there is any restriction on a work, it isn't PD. This is perhaps not apparent and could do with hardening up. > The attribution is to the owner of the database, not the author of the > work. There is no requirement in ODbL to provide attribution to the > authors of the database's content. Indeed the ODbL asserts that it > provides no protection over any of the content, just on the database > as a collective whole. It makes the provision for the database content > to be protected by some other mechanism, such as copyright, but we > see that the proposed FIL license doesn't provide that protection. Again, this hinges on whether FIL _is_ what's proposed. I don't believe that was Jordan's intention. The wiki is contradictory: in one place it says "Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL." but in another "when you upload your individual contributions, you agree to licence them under the Factual Info Licence." You're on the OSMF board, you can tell us. :) For what it's worth, I distinctly remember Jordan telling me in Reading that he expected individual users to license their contributions under ODbL; and though in my heart of hearts I'm a PD person and prefer things like the FIL, I too think that ODbL is pragmatically what OSM should be adopting here. > > [...] > > Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's > > contribution may not, on its own, be a database. > [...] > Let me clarify. The database right applies to a collection of facts. > An individual contribution may not qualify as a database if it is not > a significant collection of facts, not because it is just one person. > Most individual contributions will be insufficient *on their own* > to constitute a database. In which case they're uncopyrightable and don't qualify for any protection under CC-BY-SA either, so it's moot. I don't quite see your point. >> I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than >> me, and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could >> individually be licensed under ODbL. > If that were the case then the FIL license would not be necessary. Yes, absolutely. Indeed for most people FIL is irrelevant. It's a specific clarification to cover an issue in Australian law: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000607.html In general terms, FIL covers the individual, atomic, uncopyrightable facts. ODbL covers your aggregation of these into your contributions to OSM. > Attribution to individuals is really really important to many > contributors. > They give their time and effort, attribution is the *only* reward for > these > people. They want to be able to say "I did that". Fine. So let's give them attribution. We don't a
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > 80n wrote: > > It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one. > > As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be > > compatible. > > In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet > the relicensing happened. The point is that "compatible" can actually be > decided by CC themselves. > > This thing about ODbL giving the user "fewer rights" is an absolute canard > (quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed > in > a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in > jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It > requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA > doesn't. > I agree that ODbL does provide some additional rights, but it also removes some rights and those are the ones that are are important to consider in the context of an automatic relicensing. > > Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie > in > relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as "fewer > rights". Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, called Produced Works, that are not share alike. > I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is > so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of > the > guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way. > That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google. > > > It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one. > > The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for > > the contributor. > > Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must "c. Keep > intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to > this Licence". That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder, > i.e. the original author. The attribution is to the owner of the database, not the author of the work. There is no requirement in ODbL to provide attribution to the authors of the database's content. Indeed the ODbL asserts that it provides no protection over any of the content, just on the database as a collective whole. It makes the provision for the database content to be protected by some other mechanism, such as copyright, but we see that the proposed FIL license doesn't provide that protection. > > > > [...] > > Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's > > contribution > > may not, on its own, be a database. > > That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be > a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for > multiple authorship and neither does ODbL. Let me clarify. The database right applies to a collection of facts. An individual contribution may not qualify as a database if it is not a significant collection of facts, not because it is just one person. Most individual contributions will be insufficient *on their own* to constitute a database. If someone were to spend a few weeks mapping a town and then contribute that town in one shot then that may be a database and so could be submitted to OSM under an ODbL license. But I don't think we want to encourage that kind of behaviour. The average contribution, a single editing session with JOSM or Potlatch, would not constitute a database. > > > > The only proposal I've seen, and it > > appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away > > *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL. > > I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be > > a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL. > > I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more > discussion than it's had to date. > > I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than > me, > and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could > individually be licensed under ODbL. If that were the case then the FIL license would not be necessary. Your contributions would be ODbL. My > contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL > database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by "a > location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to > look > for it" (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a > condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any > copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a > reference to ODbL. > Attribution to individuals is really really important to many contributors. They give their time and effort, attribution is the *only* reward for these people. They want to be able to say "I did that". > > cheers
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
80n wrote: > It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one. > As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be > compatible. In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet the relicensing happened. The point is that "compatible" can actually be decided by CC themselves. This thing about ODbL giving the user "fewer rights" is an absolute canard (quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed in a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA doesn't. Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie in relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as "fewer rights". I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of the guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way. That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google. > It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one. > The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for > the contributor. Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must "c. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this Licence". That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder, i.e. the original author. > [...] > Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's > contribution > may not, on its own, be a database. That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for multiple authorship and neither does ODbL. > The only proposal I've seen, and it > appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away > *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL. > I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be > a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL. I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more discussion than it's had to date. I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than me, and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could individually be licensed under ODbL. Your contributions would be ODbL. My contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by "a location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look for it" (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a reference to ODbL. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22261200.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > 80n wrote: > > It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA > > license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen. > > It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that, > in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just that > one works for data and the other doesn't. > It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one. As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be compatible. It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one. The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for the contributor. > "Two incompatible licences with the same intent" is broadly why FSF agreed > to facilitate Wikipedia's migration to CC-BY-SA, too. > > > More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what > > contributors > > will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every > > respect. > > Right - so is the proposal that contributors actually sign up to FIL? > There's been some uncertainty over that in the past. > Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's contribution may not, on its own, be a database. The only proposal I've seen, and it appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL. I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL. 80n > > cheers > Richard > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260883.html > Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
80n wrote: > It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA > license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen. It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that, in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just that one works for data and the other doesn't. "Two incompatible licences with the same intent" is broadly why FSF agreed to facilitate Wikipedia's migration to CC-BY-SA, too. > More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what > contributors > will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every > respect. Right - so is the proposal that contributors actually sign up to FIL? There's been some uncertainty over that in the past. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260883.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > CC-BY-SA says: > > You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly > digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a > later version of this License with the same License Elements as this > License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same > License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). > > > Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision > and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons > iCommons > licence for the purposes of the above - in much the same way as FSF > permitted migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA? > > It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen. More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what contributors will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every respect. 80n > > cheers > Richard > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260709.html > Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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
