Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Anthony wrote: > I guess clause 2 is redundant. It would be sufficient to simply say > "contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL". Except that Clause 3 contains " or another free and open license." But otherwise, yes, that does seem a lot simpler: OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 2.0 1. You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements). You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below. 2 Rights granted. You irrevocably license the Contents under all of the following: CC-BY-SA 2.0, DbCL 1.0, ODbL 1.0. Anyway, I'm very late to this discussion so I'm sure this dead horse is well and truly beaten. (No nitpicking on DbCL vs ODbL please - I'm not familiar with them) Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> >> I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, >> why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? > > OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later > under the ODbL. Why do they need to do this? Specifically, why can't the contributors do this themselves? > OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 > indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. I understand that explanation. But not the other one. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later > under the ODbL. In order to do so it needs to have permission to do so. > Clause 2 gives this permission. > > OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 > indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. I see. I think I was missing the effect of the "Subject to Section 3 below" bit. So effectively Clause 2 says they can do whatever they want with the data...subject to their self-imposed limitation that they will only license it under one of those three licences. Hmm. Well, the more I learn about it, I guess the less I'm convinced it's the right way to go. It demands an awful lot of trust from users in the OSMF, and really shuts out organisations like NearMap from the whole process. I guess I'll still be signing up, depending on what NearMap do. But, I started this thread to ask a question, and it's been answered, so I won't relaunch yet another variation on "you bastards!" Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:57:34AM +1000, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Just wondering if someone could summarise what the deal with clause 2 > is, since that's the one NearMap objects to most: I'm assuming Good Faith on behalf of the Foundation and Working Groups here - no conspiracy theories here about this being about a *planned* step after ODbL to a particular type of more (or less) liberal license. In that spirit, Clause 2 is the enabling clause for Clause 3, so that's where to look first. Clause 3 codifies and simplifies the process for the next re-licencing, whenever it may be. In the current process, data from contributors who individually agree to re-licence their edits will be included in the ODbL release of OSM and data from those who refuse will not be included, but there are a large number of past contributors who cannot be contacted. As things stand, the data from these uncontactables will have to be deemed insignificant as far as copyright law goes, or also deleted. In 5, 10, 15 years, or whenever circumstances mean a new licence is appropriate, there will be many many more uncontactables, and given they will have contributed under ODbL, there will be less wriggle-room to declare their contributions insignficant. Clause 3 puts restrictions on a future relicence - most significantly there must be 2/3rds support of the active contributors at the time. Clause 2 assigns to the OSMF the legal rights that would be needed for them to re-licence, assuming the conditions in Clause 3 are met. s ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later under the ODbL. In order to do so it needs to have permission to do so. Clause 2 gives this permission. OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On 20 September 2010 14:14, Steve Bennett wrote: > That sounds like Clause 3. I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, > why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? The same question could be asked about GPL software and FSF... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:38 PM, John Smith wrote: >The CTs basically make it a great deal easier to shift OSM to PD in future That sounds like Clause 3. I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On 20 September 2010 11:57, Steve Bennett wrote: > what motivated this clause. If someone could give a relatively neutral > summary of the arguments on both sides, I'd be very appreciative. I'm You won't get a neutral summary, the problem here is competing ideologies, you have some trying to push OSM in a PD direction, while others prefer share-a-like. The CTs basically make it a great deal easier to shift OSM to PD in future than would be possible with your suggestion of getting people to accept different licenses in future. To put it as succinctly as possible, what is being attempted here is similar to pushing linux from GPL to a BSD license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
Hi all, [preamble: I've really ignored the whole CT and licensing debate until now. But with NearMap now removed as a Potlatch editing source, I'm more interested - my contribution to OSM is essentially on hold until this is resolved] Just wondering if someone could summarise what the deal with clause 2 is, since that's the one NearMap objects to most: "Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, 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. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." I don't want to join the debate at this stage, but I'd like to hear what motivated this clause. If someone could give a relatively neutral summary of the arguments on both sides, I'd be very appreciative. I'm particularly interested because it seems unusual and somewhat unnecessary (eg, Wikipedia doesn't require you to give up any rights to the Wikimedia Foundation - you just license your contributions, and they use them the same as anyone else could, given that licence). But I'm probably missing a lot. Thanks in advance, Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
