Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on?the?signup page.
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:00AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > > This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not > > working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s > > far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of > > it. > > Some day I die. Should I take my OSM data with me, or try to re-activate my > e-mail account pretty soon then? Yes and no. You could change that by giving licence to OSM to do whatever they wish with your data after your death. Have you written your will yet? :) Or, you could indicate that you allow your data to be licensed as the OSM community sees fit now. This is really your choice, and not something to be forced by the licence. Much more idealistically, copyright and database right terms would be reduced and measured from the date of publication. Every work becomes public domain in a reasonable amount of time, and everyone gets to make use of it, regardless of whether the authors disappear. 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 simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Simon Ward wrote: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: >> Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to >> give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you >> waive all right to ownership of your edits. > > This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not > working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s > far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of > it. GPL-licenced Free Software projects can use two safeguards against losing track of contributors. Firstly, licencing code under "Version X or later" of the GPL. CC's licences include this option automatically in the licence itself as the "upgrade clause". With the GPL, you trust that Stallman won't suddenly decide that the GPL needs to give everyone's code to Microsoft for their proprietary use, with the CC licences they explicitly state that the new licence must have only the same modules as the existing licence. Secondly, getting copyright assignments from contributors. I can't see OSM going for assignment (of whatever rights), but accepting contributions under "version X or later of the licence" would allow OSM to take advantage of version 5 of the ODbL to handle the WIPO Universal Database Copyright Act of 2030. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
Simon Ward writes: > > On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to > > give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you > > waive all right to ownership of your edits. > > This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not > working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s > far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of > it. > > Simon Some day I die. Should I take my OSM data with me, or try to re-activate my e-mail account pretty soon then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 07:22:36PM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: > Why? If the owner of the data ever shows up, they can 1) agree to any > changes in the license, or 2) ask to have their data removed. I don't > see much value in removing the data now on the chance that we might have > to remove it later. Conversely, if the author ever shows up in the situation where their data has been removed because sufficient rights were not determined, they can resubmit the data with terms compatible with OSM. Of course, this assumes they still have that data. 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 simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
I see your point. Data potentially infringing if removed now could be recreated now, making later bookkeeping easier. On Mar 1, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: I don't see much value in removing the data now on the chance that we might have to remove it later. Viral licenses are called viral for a reason. If you have to remove something it is always good to do so before it has infected a lot of other things. Or more practical, if someone draws the basic road grid for a city in a day and you remove it BEFORE everyone else has built on top of that, you lose only a day's work; if you remove it half a year later (and remove everything that can be said to be derived from it), then you might lose a lot more. 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 -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: > I don't see much value in removing the data now on the chance that we might > have > to remove it later. Viral licenses are called viral for a reason. If you have to remove something it is always good to do so before it has infected a lot of other things. Or more practical, if someone draws the basic road grid for a city in a day and you remove it BEFORE everyone else has built on top of that, you lose only a day's work; if you remove it half a year later (and remove everything that can be said to be derived from it), then you might lose a lot more. 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 simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
On Mar 1, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Simon Ward wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you waive all right to ownership of your edits. This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of it. Why? If the owner of the data ever shows up, they can 1) agree to any changes in the license, or 2) ask to have their data removed. I don't see much value in removing the data now on the chance that we might have to remove it later. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: Russ Nelson schrieb: [...], or your email address stops working, you waive all right to ownership of your edits. Probably about as legally binding as posting a note on the site that says "By reading this you agree to sacrifice your firstborn to the OSMF". Nothing is perfect, nothing is absolute. You could have an airplane crash on your house and kill you in your sleep. That is no reason to fail to make plans for tomorrow, or to take clear steps towards solving a problem. Yes, it probably has problems under copyright laws which recognize inalienable authorship rights, but the author would have to show or prove authorship. It's a reasonable standard to require ownership of an email address to prove ownership of the copyrighted work. In order to lose your ownership rights under this standard, you would have to 1) forget your password AND 2) not be able to receive email at the email address. Yes, somebody could come along later and propose a different standard. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: > Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to > give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you > waive all right to ownership of your edits. This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of it. 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
