Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple majority board decision for that. Not so - in the meantime, information might have been added to the map which is not compatible with CC-BY-SA 2.0. Recall the wording of the contributor terms and the clarification given by the LWG: contributions have to be compatible with the *current* licence, whatever that may be. That means that right now, users are able to upload contributions which (because of rights held by third parties) are usable under CC-BY-SA 2.0 only - and that is why 'odbl=clean' and 'contributor_terms=clean' are not quite the same thing. If the licence is changed, then from that point onwards it will be possible to upload contributions which are usable only under the newer licence. This is one reason why dual licensing under both CC-BY-SA and ODbL is a good idea - it makes sure that, under the contributor terms, new contributions to the map are usable under both licences. This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power. That's a whole nother discussion. Personally, I would advocate splitting OSMF in two: one organization which manages the servers, holds the openstreetmap.org domain name and any related naming rights such as trademarks, and performs most of the other OSMF functions. The second organization would exist only to hold rights in the map database and sublicense it under ODbL/DbCL or other licences. This split would add some useful checks and balances - among other things it would prevent control of the servers being used to force through licence changes. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?
On 19/02/12 12:50, Rob Myers wrote: On 19/02/12 11:17, Frederik Ramm wrote: But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple majority board decision for that. ... Could we - could OSMF - in such a situation simply say: Know what, Mr big guy? Either you play nice and release that data, or we'll simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 next month. Yep. Although they could continue to use the existing data. Which might make delicensing feel less of a(n immediate) threat. I don't assume that we would really *want* to go back but it wouldn't exactly kill us, and depending on what is at stake (I assume it could easily be a multi million dollar thing) we (the project) would lose much less than those we'd be up against. We wouldn't really want to but we *could*, and the fact that the big guy would only have to piss off the wrong four people at OSMF to ruin his product could balance one thing or the other in our favour. Protecting the freedom of individuals to use the data that OSM gathers and distributes isn't about pissing people off, etc., but yes there is apparently a nuclear option there. The collateral damage would be eye-watering though, in terms of burnt karma, lost trust, and punishment of innocent actors. It really would - and would surely lead to a big, permanent fork of the project. A company with a big investment in something based on ODbL-licensed OSM would undoubtedly go on using it, and would probably invest in attracting people to contribute to it. If people are willing to contribute to sign-all-your-rights-away maps like Google Maps and People's Map, they might well have some success. Certainly any other companies thinking of using OSM would prefer to invest in the ODbL fork than an OSMF license has changed twice and might change again fork. Many ordinary mappers who don't care about licensing might also be inclined to join up with a it's ODbL and we're never going to bother you with changes to CTs again effort. 2. Are we happy with OSMF board wielding this power - should we (the OSMF membership) perhaps curtail OSMF board's powers by creating a rule that says that any decision regarding the license under which the data is published must be taken by the whole membership and not just the board? Do you mean the foundation membership or active contributors to OSM? Either would be better than leaving it to the board; I'd be happy with it being the OSMF membership. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?
Hi, the following occurred to me today, and I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts about it. What I'm writing here is not at all news; I just hadn't thought about it until now. In the Contributor terms, the license that OSM data is distributed under is mentioned in this way: OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents ... under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. It is clear that the license can be changed to a different one at any time through the 2/3 provision. But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple majority board decision for that. This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power. Let us assume for a moment that there are a few big players waiting in the wings with products ready to be launched once the license change has come through; products that have been designed for over a year and at considerable cost. Assume someone launches a few months after the license change, and further assume that there is something we (as a project) are unhappy about. Say they mix their proprietary data with OSM data in a way where *we* think they have to release something back but *they* point to the legal analysis they have been doing for the last two years and say no way, Jose, come sue us if you dare, mwhahahaha. Could we - could OSMF - in such a situation simply say: Know what, Mr big guy? Either you play nice and release that data, or we'll simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 next month. I don't assume that we would really *want* to go back but it wouldn't exactly kill us, and depending on what is at stake (I assume it could easily be a multi million dollar thing) we (the project) would lose much less than those we'd be up against. We wouldn't really want to but we *could*, and the fact that the big guy would only have to piss off the wrong four people at OSMF to ruin his product could balance one thing or the other in our favour. Questions arising from this - 1. Is my reasoning correct? 2. Are we happy with OSMF board wielding this power - should we (the OSMF membership) perhaps curtail OSMF board's powers by creating a rule that says that any decision regarding the license under which the data is published must be taken by the whole membership and not just the board? 3. If the CTs were changed post-license-change to omit CC-BY-SA 2.0 from the list of available licenses, then the above scenario would become impractical - we could then not simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 without losing data from new contributors (unless going through the 2/3 rule). Such a change in the CTs would create more security for anyone investing in a product based on our data by taking away the bargaining chip I have written about. Does the power to change the CTs currently sit with the board alone, and are we happy with that? The power to modify the CTs carries with it the power to entrench the current license practically forever; someone with liberty to change the CT as they see fit could, for example, simply strike out the future license change possible with 2/3 of active contributors clause and therefore create a situation in which no future OSMF can change the license without going through what we go through now. Of course the CTs cannot be changed retroactively but doing so for new signups is effective enough. 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] Is the license change easily reversible?
On 19/02/12 11:17, Frederik Ramm wrote: But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple majority board decision for that. Yep. And 2.0 could then be upgraded to a higher version with the next planet dump. This might be desirable if, for example, 4.0 has irresistibly wonderful database right handling. Everyone is following the CC 4.0 drafting process and providing input, right? :-) This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power. [inserts quote about power and responsibility.] Could we - could OSMF - in such a situation simply say: Know what, Mr big guy? Either you play nice and release that data, or we'll simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 next month. Yep. Although they could continue to use the existing data. Which might make delicensing feel less of a(n immediate) threat. I don't assume that we would really *want* to go back but it wouldn't exactly kill us, and depending on what is at stake (I assume it could easily be a multi million dollar thing) we (the project) would lose much less than those we'd be up against. We wouldn't really want to but we *could*, and the fact that the big guy would only have to piss off the wrong four people at OSMF to ruin his product could balance one thing or the other in our favour. Protecting the freedom of individuals to use the data that OSM gathers and distributes isn't about pissing people off, etc., but yes there is apparently a nuclear option there. The collateral damage would be eye-watering though, in terms of burnt karma, lost trust, and punishment of innocent actors. 1. Is my reasoning correct? I believe so. 2. Are we happy with OSMF board wielding this power - should we (the OSMF membership) perhaps curtail OSMF board's powers by creating a rule that says that any decision regarding the license under which the data is published must be taken by the whole membership and not just the board? Do you mean the foundation membership or active contributors to OSM? 3. If the CTs were changed post-license-change to omit CC-BY-SA 2.0 from the list of available licenses, then the above scenario would become impractical - we could then not simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 without losing data from new contributors (unless going through the 2/3 rule). The CTs could then be changed back, and data contributed prior to the initial change could be licenced back down. Such a change in the CTs would create more security for anyone investing in a product based on our data by taking away the bargaining chip I have written about. Does the power to change the CTs currently sit with the board alone, and are we happy with that? Pass. The power to modify the CTs carries with it the power to entrench the current license practically forever; someone with liberty to change the CT as they see fit could, for example, simply strike out the future license change possible with 2/3 of active contributors clause and therefore create a situation in which no future OSMF can change the license without going through what we go through now. Of course the CTs cannot be changed retroactively but doing so for new signups is effective enough. And this is part of the problem with listing specific licences. The CTs should explain the idea, not fossilize the expression. Yes, this will impose large social and time costs on future decisions by requiring interminable debate about whether any change fits the spirit and the letter of what is intended. But that is better than not being able to do so, or having to change the CTs in order to allow it by fiat. Changing the CTs doesn't exactly seem to make people feel loved. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
