Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed anyone!! Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD Sebastian Spaeth: Wikipedia PD Rob Myers: CC Zero (Wikipedia PD) Gustav Foseid: CC Zero / Wikipedia PD According to this, Wikipedia style public domain dedication statement wins. CC Zero is not finished, and therefore cannot be used now. So Wikipedia PD it is?? Is this decision informal enough?? :) PDDL: http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ CC Zero: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCZero Wikipedia PD: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can they use and which they cannot?? Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD. I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public domain for OSM/PD. Simply because it is simple. Public Domain Dedication And License looks too complicated - I think it will scare people off. CC Zero is not finished. Once it is finished, I don't see any reasons why we couldn't later switch to CC Zero, if it turns out to be good. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don't relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn't because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it's PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkj+aC0ACgkQj6/6lS/XEIp+nwCeMjkQRU9qTcNNVaIWDYTDalRR 1cwAmwXFNT0lp/jPVbHdEi7x2jBYqrb6 =Ibli -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
I'm happy with that. Thankyou :) -J On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed anyone!! Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD Sebastian Spaeth: Wikipedia PD Rob Myers: CC Zero (Wikipedia PD) Gustav Foseid: CC Zero / Wikipedia PD According to this, Wikipedia style public domain dedication statement wins. CC Zero is not finished, and therefore cannot be used now. So Wikipedia PD it is?? Is this decision informal enough?? :) PDDL: http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ CC Zero: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCZero Wikipedia PD: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can they use and which they cannot?? Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD. I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public domain for OSM/PD. Simply because it is simple. Public Domain Dedication And License looks too complicated - I think it will scare people off. CC Zero is not finished. Once it is finished, I don't see any reasons why we couldn't later switch to CC Zero, if it turns out to be good. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don't relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn't because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it's PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkj+aC0ACgkQj6/6lS/XEIp+nwCeMjkQRU9qTcNNVaIWDYTDalRR 1cwAmwXFNT0lp/jPVbHdEi7x2jBYqrb6 =Ibli -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we get a vague show of hands about what people think of this? I +1 for the wikipedia version. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Wikipedia version is the best current PD Dedication but I really would recommend waiting on CC Zero. CC Zero explicitly mentions database rights, which I think is a good thing, but I would be ahppy with the Wikipedia dedication as well. Regards, Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. I don't think its that big a deal - we could just say if you edit a node, your edits are also under the same PD license as the node is currently under or something. Its a bit icky; but I can't think of any real-world issues this causes. -J On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure this works. What happens when you add a poi under one licence, and I come and update the poi with some new bit of information, and want to use some other licence? It would mean that the single poi in under multiple licences. Or would we have a tagging war based on the licence, rather than the name of the roads? It is much simpler to have one licence for all the data. Shaun On 21 Oct 2008, at 15:25, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: I have no problem avoiding the moral rights quagmire. I think simplicity is one of the reasons to move to PD in the first place. I don't think it would be a problem to use the wikipedia public domain license now, and then consider a future move to something like the CC Zero. I would strongly recommend we do one thing that OSM hasn't done. That is require a tag for each feature that indicates the license the feature was released under. I know it's all PD, but this would allow us to sort and catagorize the data in the event of future legal interpretations or developments. I'd rather have a simple license tag then get to a point down the road where a large portion of the data has a cloud over its use because of some legal decision. The Sunburned Surveyor On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Gustav Foseid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Wikipedia version is the best current PD Dedication but I really would recommend waiting on CC Zero. CC Zero explicitly mentions database rights, which I think is a good thing, but I would be ahppy with the Wikipedia dedication as well. Regards, Gustav ___ 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 ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Joseph Gentle wrote: We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. Yeah you will - a single PD disclaimer of rights (PDDL, CC0, Wikipedia-like, WTFPL, doesn't really matter), with an attribution/disclaimer page somewhere on the web for all those bulk imports. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don’t relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn’t because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it’s PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can they use and which they cannot?? Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD. I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public domain for OSM/PD. Simply because it is simple. Public Domain Dedication And License looks too complicated - I think it will scare people off. CC Zero is not finished. Once it is finished, I don't see any reasons why we couldn't later switch to CC Zero, if it turns out to be good. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don't relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn't because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it's PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkj+aC0ACgkQj6/6lS/XEIp+nwCeMjkQRU9qTcNNVaIWDYTDalRR 1cwAmwXFNT0lp/jPVbHdEi7x2jBYqrb6 =Ibli -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Frederik Ramm wrote: The more complex thing is that some jurisdictions make it really difficult for you to give away your rights so generously. Which is a splendid reason to use WTFPL, reproduced here in its entirety: DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. From its FAQ (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/): Isn’t this license basically public domain? There is no such thing as putting a work in the public domain, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public domain. cheers Richard who has not quite been dead for 70 years ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, 80n wrote: Perhaps PD is not as simple as it seems at first sight. The thing that is simple about PD is what contributors want - they simply want to make the data available to anyone, forever, without restrictions of any kind, full stop. But that's not what Sunburned Surveyor actually said. He specifically said that he wasn't a proponent of PD until... So in this case he's not really a PD advocate, but just found the share alike licensing too difficult and wanted an easy life. I was just pointing out that PD is not necessarily an easy life. IPR and licensing is a complex business. Whatever we do it will not be easy. 80n You will not find a single use case where one PD advocate says I want this to be possible and another says nay, this should not be allowed and the third says ok we can allow this but only if the licensee dons a funny hat and runs in circles for half an hour. We're all 100% on the same side and there is absolutely no discussion about where to draw the line between allowed and not allowed. The more complex thing is that some jurisdictions make it really difficult for you to give away your rights so generously. So the guy who told you use my data as you see fit might actually be from a country where him saying so doesn't exactly mean what he says! But this is really legislation gone mad, and should not be held against the idea of PD. The idea of giving away something freely, with no strings attached, *is* a very simple idea that can easily be understood by anyone. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Sorry, I've been busy writing up research proposals and whatnot. I'm starting a phd next year (woohoo!). I don't like the standard creative commons PD license. Their CC-zero license is ok, but not finished. Here's the wikipedia license from earlier in the thread: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Here's the ODC Public Domain Dedication: http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ It is about 5 pages long. I am happy with either. We probably should just pick one. Unlike normal OSM, there is nothing viral about either license. It doesn't matter if some data has been dedicated using one PD license and some using another. If we find problems, we can probably just change licenses for future data while keeping all the old stuff. (The TIGER data and whatnot will probably be under a different license from everything else anyway. So will OSM data by users marked with PD. There's nothing wrong with that). I really like small simple licenses. They are easy for the rest of us to understand. However, I can certainly see the advantages to a big license like the ODC PD license. It is much more explicit about things like patents, databases, facts, etc. It explicitly mentions that code written to render the maps is not necessarily covered under the same license. I don't really foresee problems using a simple license, but a big license which is explicit about everything is probably better. However, I'm a bit nervous about the ODC PD license abandoning the publisher's moral rights. That means I can legally come along and say that I drew all the maps myself; or I could draw offensive pictures out of your roads and say that was you. I don't mind if people don't attribute me - but thats different from pretending you were the author. Jordan: Why is this in there? Can we take it out? My vote is for ODC-PD if the moral rights waiver is removed and the wikipedia pd license otherwise. -J On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Sunburned Surveyor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for doing that initial work Kari. I've been home with the flu, so I've been a little out of the loop. I think we could make decisions based on an informal vote of the OSM contributors interested in PD. As things get more serious we can use a more formal governance structure, if one is needed. I'll see if I can make more time to comment tomorrow, if I'm feeling better. I'd like to know what Jospeh thinks as well. Thanks again. Landon On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There is also a link from the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License to the new page. I listed all public domain licenses - we need to decide which one to use. How to make decisions? Voting? Also, there is a todo list. I'm not sure if it lists all the required actions, please correct it if it is wrong. - Kari On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...) To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work to produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to explain to say the least. Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which I suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it from the ODBL page. Thanks, Peter ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Hi, Joseph Gentle wrote: However, I'm a bit nervous about the ODC PD license abandoning the publisher's moral rights. That means I can legally come along and say that I drew all the maps myself; or I could draw offensive pictures out of your roads and say that was you. I don't mind if people don't attribute me - but thats different from pretending you were the author. Jordan: Why is this in there? Can we take it out? Ok, I take back what I previously said to 80n about all PD advocates being on the same page ;-) Joseph, with PD you don't get to dictate how the data is used. You waive all rights, including the right to be identified as the author. If someone takes the whole TIGER dataset and says he drew it up himself, I don't think there is anything to stop him - just that he makes a complete fool of himself because nobody will believe him. Same with your contributions to a PD database. EITHER your contribution is marginal so that someone can realistically claim he did it all by himself, in which case nobody can prove him otherwise - and even if your license did contain a bit about not allowing him to lie about the provenance of the data, he could still do it and not be found out. OR your contribution is substantial so that anyone can see that someone has used your data, in which case it would be plain stupid of someone to lie because he would be found out and his credibility destroyed. It would be his users who'd expect him to tell the truth about where he's got the data from - not us data providers. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, I take back what I previously said to 80n about all PD advocates being on the same page ;-) We're very close, and we don't have to agree. Data published with free non-viral licenses can coexist peacefully. We're really arguing about what the default license for contributors should be. Joseph, with PD you don't get to dictate how the data is used. You waive all rights, including the right to be identified as the author. If someone takes the whole TIGER dataset and says he drew it up himself, I don't think there is anything to stop him - just that he makes a complete fool of himself because nobody will believe him. Thats not true. I don't think the US Government has waived their moral rights regarding the TIGER data. As I understand it, placing work in the public domain does not automatically waive your moral rights on the work. Same with your contributions to a PD database. EITHER your contribution is marginal so that someone can realistically claim he did it all by himself, in which case nobody can prove him otherwise - and even if your license did contain a bit about not allowing him to lie about the provenance of the data, he could still do it and not be found out. OR your contribution is substantial so that anyone can see that someone has used your data, in which case it would be plain stupid of someone to lie because he would be found out and his credibility destroyed. I don't understand the use case for people passing off my work as their own. I am a huge proponent of public domain; but I don't see how waiving moral rights ever helps. I understand if people want to use my work for any purpose. I understand them building it into their product, selling it, changing it, publishing it, putting overlays, etc. I'm happy with all of that. But if you waive moral rights they can also say Frederik is a liar if he said he made them. If you want these maps, you come to us because they are ours! I have no problem with anyone using the maps. I have no problem getting no attribution. But I have a problem with that sort of thing. The Berne Convention says it best: Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. (thanks wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights ) Note that this does not say people can't change or mutilate your data. It just says that the mutilation won't be attributed to you. I would be happy to waive moral rights if you can provide a useful use case for doing so. Until then, it feels dirty and I don't see the point. -J It would be his users who'd expect him to tell the truth about where he's got the data from - not us data providers. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Hi, Joseph Gentle wrote: I don't understand the use case for people passing off my work as their own. I don't either. But trying to force *anything* onto your users means that you cannot let go of the data - you're then automatically entering this whole license swamp because where you make demands you also need a stick to enforce them: I grant you a license to use this for whatever, BUT should you ever try to pass this data off as your own, THEN this license is void and since I am still the owner of the data I will then revoke all your rights under this license and threaten you with EVIL THINGS... See, you can only enforce anything if your data is *not* PD, if you still reserve the right to withdraw the license from people who misbehave. Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. If you intend to uphold this, then your PD repository is likely to become less free than the original OSM data set which, at least in the curren ODbL draft, waives this right. Note that this does not say people can't change or mutilate your data. It just says that the mutilation won't be attributed to you. I don't read it that way. The author can object to certain treatment of the work if that damages his reputation. Not the author may choose not to be mentioned in connection with the work if someone decides to use it in conjunction with human excrements for an art installation or so ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thats not true. I don't think the US Government has waived their moral rights regarding the TIGER data. As I understand it, placing work in the public domain does not automatically waive your moral rights on the work. Moral rights are a very murky, unsettled area of law in many parts of the world. They are definately best avoided in any OSM PD model. I would doubt that there are any moral rights under US law associated with the TIGER data for the government even to renounce. I understand if people want to use my work for any purpose. I understand them building it into their product, selling it, changing it, publishing it, putting overlays, etc. I'm happy with all of that. But if you waive moral rights they can also say Frederik is a liar if he said he made them. If you want these maps, you come to us because they are ours! There can be a right to integrity - even if the original author is not attributed. There can be a right of attribution. This is the stuff we want to leave way behind with a PD licence. Leave behind concerns of attribution, where and how. Leave behind concerns of who can change what, or what they can do with it. Why would you go PD to get rid of the copyright minefield, and then step right into another quagmire. A PD licence says, I've created the data, I've done it because I enjoyed doing it, got out in the fresh air, and played around with GPS's, computers and mapping. Now, go and do whatever you want with what I've done. If someone else wants to lie and say they made them, then they must answer to their respective deity, because I've had my fun, and I don't care. Ian. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain, OSM Data
On 15 Oct 2008, at 14:04, John Wilbanks wrote: Jordan Hatcher is the author of the Public Domain Dedication License by the way, not CC. However, the PDDL is the only license that SC currently certifies as compliant with the protocol - CC Zero isn't there yet. Yep! BTW, I have changed jobs recently and so am a lot more busy. I'm looking at ways to strengthen the involvement of OKFN in the Open Data Commons project and aim to get things stable in terms of future development and support in the next few months. Look out for a call for volunteers, probably on the website, sometime soon. Thanks! ~Jordan Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net Open Data Commons http://opendatacommons.org Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Don't set up too much of your own structure just yet, because it is very well possible that it makes sense to fly under the flag OpenStreetMap/PD once things are a bit clearer, but you cannot possibly expect many from OSM to endorse the thing when so little is clear about it... personally, I would much prefer OpenStreetMap/PD or something like that instead of a completely different name, and also have friendly cooperation between both in the future. I don't suppose there should be objections to setting up a pd-talk list on openstreetmap.org. Tom Hughes would be the person to ask, and be sure to supply him with an email address for the list admin. I think it would be much better to set up a pd-talk or something within the OSM project, there is no reason why this should not be discussed within OSM and you may even win the day :) Would I give my data to PD... possibly, not convinced yet but the answer is certainly not 'no way'. Would I join pd-talk... no, I will continue to focus on the share-alike licence as needed, however I would be interested in hearing you 'pd guys' demonstrating why you thing the project would hang together and not split into loads of rival projects under PD. To me the only strength of share-alike is that it makes it more likely that people will behave cooperatively and create a single quality mapping source for the whole world. PD seems to make it too easy to set up 'me-too' projects and split the effort. I would ask the pd-talk list to identify other successful PD datasets that are vigorous and are full of high quality data as part of their argument for a PD for OSM. Until then I will try to help the move to a better share-alike licence and my company will continue to develop tools to help contributors to OSM improve the quality and completeness of the data. Regards, Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...) To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work to produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to explain to say the least. Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which I suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it from the ODBL page. Thanks, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There is also a link from the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License to the new page. I listed all public domain licenses - we need to decide which one to use. How to make decisions? Voting? Also, there is a todo list. I'm not sure if it lists all the required actions, please correct it if it is wrong. - Kari On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...) To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work to produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to explain to say the least. Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which I suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it from the ODBL page. Thanks, Peter ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
I was looking at the OSGeo data committee wondering where their data was as they seem to have the same goals as us. I don't think picking the right PD license will be a particularly large hurdle. It is certainly less complicated than selecting a share-alike license :) The wikipedia pd license looks good. I don't think it matters much where our mailing list is hosted. A google group would be fine; at least for the time being. Once we have project hosting somewhere and a project name we can move the mailing list. -J On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Sunburned Surveyor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems our idea for a public domain repository of OSM data has some merit. This means we have some things to decide on. A name, what vehicle we will use to release the data under the public domain, a host for our mailing list, and a sponsor for our data hosting needs. Should we just fire up a Google Group to communicate while we get these things hammered out, or would OSM support a public domain mailing list? Landon P.S. - I might be able to get the OSGeo Data committee to take an interest in our project and help out with a server for our repository. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'm the person who started the all my contributions are PD thing on the Wiki Seems I was wrong here, Wiki history lists RichardF as the inventor and myself as a mere follower a few weeks later! Well then, I guess, PD is not so great after all ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
