Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On 03/10/2009, at 7:30 PM, Ulf Möller wrote: > [re: people contributing to a fork] > > In my understanding they don't. This is an asymmetry, but I don't see > any manageable way around it if we want to be able to change to a > different license later. (And the ODbL is new and we'd be the first > project to try it out, so I think we need a chance to switch to a > different license in case anything goes wrong or some other future > license turns out to be better.) >> > [re: EvilStreetMap not accepting contributions] > > They can decide what to do with their modifications, but the OSM > contributors have the right to vote on the licenses for the original > database. That's pretty much what I expected, that active contributors to the main database could prevent the relicensing of a derivative database, but people who were formerly contributors to the main database and now contributing to the derivative one couldn't prevent relicensing of the main database. As you said, we probably can't get away from the asymmetry between two and still be able to relicense without requiring everyone's permission again. As long as a fork doesn't get to the point of arguing over who gets to be The Project, with it's special database contributors. Thank for verifying what I thought it meant. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
James Livingston schrieb: > Something I just thought of that would probably be worth talking about > - how does the "active contributor" for voting, and other things, work > if (unfortunately) the project forks? The forked project would be able to use the regular ODbL upgrade path (a "later version" of the ODbL or a "compatible license"), but not to vote for a different license. This is similar to the situation with other open projects, for example the FSF could introduce new licenses for their projects, but forked projects have to work under the conditions of the GPL. > (question) does the OSFM membership retain it's voting power over a > re-license for all derivative databases? Only on the OSM database. The OSMF can't change the license on modifications by people who have no relation with it. > A while later (> 3 months) OSM decides to relicense the db, perhaps to > ODbL 2.0. > (question) what exactly defines _the_ geo-database of the the Project? > (question) and following that, if someone was contributing to OSM > before the fork and FSM after it, do they get a vote on the re-license? In my understanding they don't. This is an asymmetry, but I don't see any manageable way around it if we want to be able to change to a different license later. (And the ODbL is new and we'd be the first project to try it out, so I think we need a chance to switch to a different license in case anything goes wrong or some other future license turns out to be better.) > 2) Some time after a re-license to ODbL, someone creates a derivative > database called EvilStreetMap. They continue to release the data in > accordance with the ODbL, but do not accept any outside contributors. > (question) after waiting three months, who has voting rights over a > re-license of EvilStreetMap? They can decide what to do with their modifications, but the OSM contributors have the right to vote on the licenses for the original database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On 26/09/2009, at 3:02 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: > - A very much re-worked Contributor Terms is now virtually complete > and you can see a snapshot at > http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr > . Something I just thought of that would probably be worth talking about - how does the "active contributor" for voting, and other things, work if (unfortunately) the project forks? > the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the “Project”) ... > or another free and open license; which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the > OSMF membership [MJC3] and approved by a vote of active contributors. ... > An "active contributor" is defined as: > > a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) that has edited the Project in any 3 > calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time,); and > has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. Two situations to think about: 1) Some time after a relicense to ODbL, there is a big argument and 20% of the mappers go off to form FreeStreeMap, based on a fork of the database. (question) does the OSFM membership retain it's voting power over a re-license for all derivative databases? A while later (> 3 months) OSM decides to relicense the db, perhaps to ODbL 2.0. (question) what exactly defines _the_ geo-database of the the Project? (question) and following that, if someone was contributing to OSM before the fork and FSM after it, do they get a vote on the re-license? 2) Some time after a re-license to ODbL, someone creates a derivative database called EvilStreetMap. They continue to release the data in accordance with the ODbL, but do not accept any outside contributors. (question) after waiting three months, who has voting rights over a re-license of EvilStreetMap? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On 30/09/2009, at 1:00 AM, Matt Amos wrote: > yes. but since there hasn't been any case law on what substantial > means (at least in europe, yet) The reason I asked was because we had decision (Nine Network vs IceTV) from our High Court a few months ago, regarding the meaning of "substantial" when applied to database copyright. Not that it means anything in the rest of the world, especially since you have sui generis database rights instead in Europe, but it is interesting to see how things differ across the globe. In this case a network produce a TV guide and someone reproduced the show name and time data from it. From my understanding, it was found that it wasn't substantial because the facts aren't copyrightable by themselves, and they hadn't reproduced a substantial part of the database schema or other things that are a copyrightable part of the database. > we were advised to create > "guidelines" on what we, as a community, consider substantial. > apparently this would likely be taken into account, in the absence of > case law, if anything goes in front of a judge. Sounds pretty sensible, especially since "substantial" varies depending on whether it's in reference to copyright on the contents of the database, copyright on the database, sui generis database rights, as well as depending on jurisdiction. If you're somewhere that only the contract part is effective, then I assume it and case law would be all that there is to go on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > James Livingston wrote: >> On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote: >>> Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui >>> generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is >>> hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap database dump. >> >> In Europe maybe - however there are countries where database do have >> inherent copyright separate from the copyright over their contents, >> for example in Australia. I think the copyright wouldn't expire for 70 >> years here, which is definitely more than the 15 for European sui >> generis database rights. > > I think we should try very hard to make conditions the same for all OSM > users on the planet, as far as possible. If what you say is true then we > should make sure (via the content license) that the content is not > protected longer in Australia than anywhere else. interesting. we should make sure that ODC are aware of this for the next version of ODbL. (note that the contents license != database license, though. individual contents and "substantial extracts" of the database are licensed separately). > Personally, as I am opposed to us trying to dictate to our users what > they may and may not do with our data, I would appreciate to see OSM > data go out of copyright as quickly as possible. (I once tried to talk > our share-alike hardliners into accepting one year, on the grounds of > one-year-old OSM data being practically useless... but they wouldn't > have it.) hi, i'm matt and i'm a PD heretic ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
Hi, James Livingston wrote: > On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote: >> Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui >> generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is >> hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap database dump. > > In Europe maybe - however there are countries where database do have > inherent copyright separate from the copyright over their contents, > for example in Australia. I think the copyright wouldn't expire for 70 > years here, which is definitely more than the 15 for European sui > generis database rights. I think we should try very hard to make conditions the same for all OSM users on the planet, as far as possible. If what you say is true then we should make sure (via the content license) that the content is not protected longer in Australia than anywhere else. Personally, as I am opposed to us trying to dictate to our users what they may and may not do with our data, I would appreciate to see OSM data go out of copyright as quickly as possible. (I once tried to talk our share-alike hardliners into accepting one year, on the grounds of one-year-old OSM data being practically useless... but they wouldn't have it.) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, James Livingston wrote: > On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote: >> Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui >> generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is >> hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap database dump. > > In Europe maybe - however there are countries where database do have > inherent copyright separate from the copyright over their contents, > for example in Australia. I think the copyright wouldn't expire for 70 > years here, which is definitely more than the 15 for European sui > generis database rights. > > I see the qualification that "substantial" is in terms of quality, > quantity or a combination of both - but out of interest, is it > supposed to mean basically what it means in terms of the underlying > copyright/database rights? yes. but since there hasn't been any case law on what substantial means (at least in europe, yet), we were advised to create "guidelines" on what we, as a community, consider substantial. apparently this would likely be taken into account, in the absence of case law, if anything goes in front of a judge. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/9/28 Gustav Foseid : >> 2009/9/28 Iván Sánchez Ortega >>> >>> Better? :-) >> >> :-) >> > > does this mean yes? What is the situation with planned Odbl? that 15-year term is with ODbL. with CC BY-SA it's arguable whether the dumps are protected at all. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
2009/9/28 Gustav Foseid : > 2009/9/28 Iván Sánchez Ortega >> >> Better? :-) > > :-) > does this mean yes? What is the situation with planned Odbl? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
2009/9/28 Iván Sánchez Ortega > > The database directive gives 15 years of protection for a dump of a > > database. As long as the database is updated, the protection period will > be > > continously renewed. > > Planet dumps which are 15 years old will be considered out-of-copyright, > though. > Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap database dump. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
El Lunes, 28 de Septiembre de 2009, Gustav Foseid escribió: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jukka Rahkonen > > wrote: > > Will all contents of OSM year 2009 database be in public domain first of > > January, 2025? > > The database directive gives 15 years of protection for a dump of a > database. As long as the database is updated, the protection period will be > continously renewed. Planet dumps which are 15 years old will be considered out-of-copyright, though. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC & freenode ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Will all contents of OSM year 2009 database be in public domain first of > January, 2025? > The database directive gives 15 years of protection for a dump of a database. As long as the database is updated, the protection period will be continously renewed. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
2009/9/28 Jukka Rahkonen : > Mike Collinson writes: > Article 10 > Term of protection > 1. The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion > of > the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of > January of the year following the date of completion. > > Will all contents of OSM year 2009 database be in public domain first of > January, 2025? I doubt that OSM db will ever be "completed" ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
Mike Collinson writes: > > Here is a quick report from the License Working Group as we have been rather quiet.Since the proposal we made to the OSMF board in August and at SOTM 2009, we have been working on a number of small issues raised but now getting on track to make our final formal license change proposal to OSMF members.- We now have a simple human-readable summary of the ODbL initiated by us and hosted at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ My human eyes can't make out how long time ODbL will protect the contents of database. Is it the same as in EU database directive "Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases" which says: Article 10 Term of protection 1. The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date of completion. Will all contents of OSM year 2009 database be in public domain first of January, 2025? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
