Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 09/03/2010 09:50 AM, Simon Ward wrote: In another post[1] I asked if linking the contributor terms to the version of the OSMF could be done. Would it be a suitable safeguard? OSMF’s stated aims A successor to the OSMF wouldn't be bound by such terms I don't think. And if the OSMF's stated aims have to change for whatever reason (new laws, a development in the project) that might be a problem. I don't know about firewalling or poison-pill-ing project IP against hostile actors. When I was working for h2g2 and that went bankrupt, there was a sale of assets that led to the BBC ending up with the online brand despite all the effort that went into protecting the brand as a whole from the BBC originally. I've no idea whether it's possible to protect against that kind of unexpected and disastrous eventuality. It may be worth looking at what Wikimedia, Apache, the FSF et al. do. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > > On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote: > > >Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be > > >transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […] > > > > Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against > > if they haven't already. > > In another post[1] I asked if linking the contributor terms to the > version of the OSMF could be done. Would it be a suitable safeguard? OSMF’s stated aims > [1]: “Rights grants in the contributor terms”, > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004207.html 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] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote: > >Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be > >transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […] > > Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against > if they haven't already. In another post[1] I asked if linking the contributor terms to the version of the OSMF could be done. Would it be a suitable safeguard? [1]: “Rights grants in the contributor terms”, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004207.html 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] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Anthony wrote: >> >> C'mon, that's what "weak copyleft" means. Not viral for some types of >> derived works. > > If that is indeed the definition of "weak copyleft" - and I'd like you to > cite a source on that - then we're changing from one sort of weak copyleft > license to another sort of weak copyleft license. I suppose you're changing from one (moderately) weak copyleft license to another, weaker copyleft license. > But (a) I don't think you have the definition right, and (b) I don't even > know why we're debating which labels from software licensing are applicable > to ODbL. You can call ODbL "blue copyleft" or "mint copyleft" if you want, > it doesn't help the discussion. I'm only debating it because you challenged me on it. Frankly, I didn't think it was going to be a matter of dispute. > If you make a produced work based on a derived database under ODbL, you have > to share the database but not the work. If you do the same under CC-BY-SA, > you have to share the work but not the database. Which license is "strong" > and which is "weak"? You're dropping context by omitting the word "copyleft". If you add back the context, it is clear that ODbL is weak copyleft and CC-BY-SA, at least in that particular contet, is strong copyleft. Copyleft does not refer to whether or not you have to "share" source code. If refers to whether or not you have to license derivatives under the same license. > The differ in where exactly share-alike is applied, but they do not differ in > strength. Apparently you've never heard the term "weak copyleft" and "strong copyleft", because you keep dropping the context of what the terms mean. Again, "copyleft" was a term coined by the Free Software Foundation to refer to the requirement to release derivative works under the same license. It has nothing to do with the requirement to "share alike" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and nothing to do with the requirement to release source code. "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms ensure that all copies of all versions carry more or less the same distribution terms." "Noncopylefted free software comes from the author with permission to redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html The term "weak copyleft" was also coined by the FSF, and used to describe the Lesser GPL (originally called the Library GPL). If you'd like to learn more about the term "copyleft", along with other terms like "weak copyleft" and "strong copyleft", a good starting point is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ Once you've read this and come to an understanding of what the terms "weak copyleft" and "strong copyleft" mean, another good bit of reading would be the thread at http://www.mail-archive.com/legal-talk@openstreetmap.org/msg01761.html [quote] i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. [/quote] More viral = stronger copyleft. Less viral = weaker copyleft. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > So BY-SA is not reciprocal in every use case at every conceptual level of > abstraction either. And there are cases where this doesn't fit people's > expectations, notably in illustration (photographic and otherwise) as I've > said. You're right, of course. BY-SA provides weaker copyleft than, say GFDL (this was brought up during the Wikipedia transition to GFDL). But that doesn't change the fact that ODbL provides even weaker copyleft than BY-SA. >> and because it requires distribution >> of source along with distribution of produced works. > > You have to share the database alike, you mean? ;-) No, that's not what I mean. > BY-SA 3.0 almost replaced the anti-DRM clause with a parallel distribution > clause. But they didn't, right? > I think this is comparable, although I admit that the requirement > not to charge for the database in some circumstances may be burdensome. So, your argument is that ODbL is comparable to something that CC-BY-SA 3.0 almost was? I have no idea if that's true or not, but it's quite irrelevant, as this is not horeshoes or hand granades. >>> Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in >>> what >>> are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM >>> community that I've encountered. >> >> So you want to change the license (not just a flaw in the license, but >> an intentional feature of it). Fine, go ahead, just be honest about >> what you're doing. > > I *personally* have never bought the "let's make it easier for nice > corporations to not free their data so people can just mash layers up" > argument on either a legal or a moral level, but this is already how OSM > treat the data under BY-SA. How so? This may be how Cloudmade treats the data, but http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations says that mash-ups are generally required to be CC-BY-SA (with a *possible* exception for mash-ups where the layers "are kept separate and independent"). How you're supposed to create a mash-up where the layers aren't mashed up is, I suppose, left as an exercise for the reader. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> Given your arguments on this list, I'd guess you're quite prepared >> to believe anything that might help prevent you from admitting >> that you are wrong. > > At this point the argument has departed from factual/philosophical to ad > hominems, so I'll bow out. To anyone who's listened, thank you for > listening. Pointing out that someone is being intellectually dishonest is not an ad hominem, but suit yourself. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Hi, Anthony wrote: C'mon, that's what "weak copyleft" means. Not viral for some types of derived works. If that is indeed the definition of "weak copyleft" - and I'd like you to cite a source on that - then we're changing from one sort of weak copyleft license to another sort of weak copyleft license. But (a) I don't think you have the definition right, and (b) I don't even know why we're debating which labels from software licensing are applicable to ODbL. You can call ODbL "blue copyleft" or "mint copyleft" if you want, it doesn't help the discussion. If you make a produced work based on a derived database under ODbL, you have to share the database but not the work. If you do the same under CC-BY-SA, you have to share the work but not the database. Which license is "strong" and which is "weak"? The differ in where exactly share-alike is applied, but they do not differ in strength. 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] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony wrote: > Given your arguments on this list, I'd guess you're quite prepared > to believe anything that might help prevent you from admitting > that you are wrong. At this point the argument has departed from factual/philosophical to ad hominems, so I'll bow out. To anyone who's listened, thank you for listening. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5491588.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 09/02/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers wrote: ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution. What it isn't is share-alike for produced works. And what it also isn't, is CC-BY-SA for databases. It provides attribution and share-alike on databases. Because it is not share-alike for produced works, BY-SA doesn't have a concept of produced works. It does have private use, collective works, compulsory licencing and other kinds of use that the share-alike doesn't cover. So BY-SA is not reciprocal in every use case at every conceptual level of abstraction either. And there are cases where this doesn't fit people's expectations, notably in illustration (photographic and otherwise) as I've said. and because it requires distribution of source along with distribution of produced works. You have to share the database alike, you mean? ;-) BY-SA 3.0 almost replaced the anti-DRM clause with a parallel distribution clause. I think this is comparable, although I admit that the requirement not to charge for the database in some circumstances may be burdensome. Even BY-SA doesn't cover absolutely everything it touches. Correct. But irrelevant. Entirely relevant. Read Richard's excellent post on how the ODbL and BY-SA compare conceptually, and read the odc-discuss post I just linked to in order to get more of a feel for this. Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in what are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM community that I've encountered. So you want to change the license (not just a flaw in the license, but an intentional feature of it). Fine, go ahead, just be honest about what you're doing. I *personally* have never bought the "let's make it easier for nice corporations to not free their data so people can just mash layers up" argument on either a legal or a moral level, but this is already how OSM treat the data under BY-SA. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> [second message] >> You must be misreading them. ODbL is weak copyleft, plus a >> database rights license, plus a contract agreement. CC-BY-SA is >> strong copyleft. Do you dispute that, or do you claim that these >> two are in the same spirit? > > You weren't asking me :) , but I'd dispute that. I wouldn't say one was > weaker or stronger than the other: ODbL's share-alike is simply more clearly > defined for data. And the LGPL is simply more clearly defined for libraries? C'mon, that's what "weak copyleft" means. Not viral for some types of derived works. > - routing code designed solely to work with OSM data: copyleft does not > persist into code > - printed cartographic map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into > creative work > - web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied > programatically: copyleft does not persist into creative work > - web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied manually: > copyleft persists into creative work > - printed mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into mashup > data Copyleft doesn't "persist into creative work" when the creative work is not a derivative. That's true of all copyleft licenses, weak or strong. (On the other hand, it's actually not true of the ODbL, as the ODbL uses contract law to reach where copyright law cannot.) > - web mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft does not persist into > mashup data That's debatable. > Is one "stronger" than the other? I don't think there's one easy answer. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that. Instead of making up a definition of "stronger" to fit your argument, try looking up what "strong copyleft" actually means. > On > the one hand, ODbL has some provisions which require the end-user to give > more back: in particular, the GPL-like requirement to release source. Which has *nothing* to do with the term "strong copyleft" as opposed to "weak copyleft". > On the > other, some items are caught within CC-BY-SA's copyleft and not ODbL's. Which is *exactly* what the term "strong copyleft" as opposed to "weak copyleft" means. > (I'm quite prepared to believe that there may be items that are caught by > ODbL's > copyleft and not CC-BY-SA's, given the existence of "loopholes" in CC-BY-SA > such as the programatically-generated derivative one.) Given your arguments on this list, I'd guess you're quite prepared to believe anything that might help prevent you from admitting that you are wrong. The distinction between "strong copyleft" and "weak copyleft" only applies to derivative works. The fact that CC-BY-SA does not cover things that are not the creation of derivative works is not a loophole, it's a feature. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: >> >> On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >>> >>> If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. >> >> +1 > > ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution. > > What it isn't is share-alike for produced works. And what it also isn't, is CC-BY-SA for databases. Because it is not share-alike for produced works, and because it requires distribution of source along with distribution of produced works. > Even BY-SA doesn't cover absolutely everything it touches. Correct. But irrelevant. > Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in what > are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM > community that I've encountered. So you want to change the license (not just a flaw in the license, but an intentional feature of it). Fine, go ahead, just be honest about what you're doing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Anthony schrieb: >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >>> >>> Anthony schrieb: Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. >>> >>> So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org >>> project? >> >> No, I'm saying they don't have 100,000 contributors (with the obvious >> context that I'm talking about contributors of "significant >> contributions"). > > Neither have we. And no, my mapping of a single midsize town and random > small other things is not significant in terms of the project in any way. > IMHO, there are probably not more than 50, perhaps 100, "significant" > contributors to OSM - fewer than the GNU project has. You're not using "significant contribution" the same way as the GNU project. I find it hard to believe that you can't see that the number of contributors of data to OSM vastly outweighs the number of source code contributors to *any* open source project. There's also the fact that the barriers to entry into becoming a contributor on OSM are vastly lower, and the fact that pseudonymous contributions are the norm. Copyright assignment could never work with OSM, which, incidentally, is something the LWG realized and decided *not* to require copyright assignment. >> If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. It isn't. > > And I think you won't get anything applying to our database that is more > similar in spirit than this. That's silly. Just remove the stuff about Produced Works, including the requirement to offer the database when you distribute Produced Works. That'd get you much closer to the spirit of CC-BY-SA. > But if we might get at some point in the > future, at least clause 3 of the CTs gives us a potential way to switch to > that. And the CTs are probably the worst part of the relicensing. But that's another topic. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony schrieb: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Anthony schrieb: Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org project? No, I'm saying they don't have 100,000 contributors (with the obvious context that I'm talking about contributors of "significant contributions"). Neither have we. And no, my mapping of a single midsize town and random small other things is not significant in terms of the project in any way. IMHO, there are probably not more than 50, perhaps 100, "significant" contributors to OSM - fewer than the GNU project has. CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an "and later" clause. Where "later", i.e. 3.0 explicitely does not apply to databases like OSM. Where does CC-BY-SA 3.0 say that it does not apply to "databases like OSM"? 3.0 explicitly does not apply to non-copyrightable collections of data. On the other hand, it explicitly does apply to maps. IANAL, but maps (like Mapnik tiles, for example) are just a product of the OSM data. Fine if those products can be protected by CC-BY-SA, but our real concern needs to be thee data behind them. And from all I've heard, most of that is very probably not copyrightable - at least in a number of significant jurisdictions. And that means, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license doesn't really apply to our data. If CC-BY-SA is the same spirit as ODbL, there wouldn't be any reason to switch. Wrong. If it makes the situation more equal and clear across different jurisdictions, abolishes the legal diffusion and per-country unfairness we are in right now and still preserves the same basic spirit behind it, then there's a very good reason switch. And that's where I'm seeing us at. But of course, you can't use a documentation license for creative works, a code license for documentation or a creative license for a mostly factual database - at least not reasonably. And that's what all our relicensing is about in the end. So my analogy was correct. You agree ODbL is not in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA, just like LGPL is not in the same spirit as GFDL. No. I think all of those are in the spirit of being free and open share-alike licenses, just for different kinds of things, and ODbL and CC-BY-SA are both attribution licenses, though we never really did follow the exact terms of CC attribution, or the attribution texts would in most cases be larger than the map images. If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. It isn't. And I think you won't get anything applying to our database that is more similar in spirit than this. But if we might get at some point in the future, at least clause 3 of the CTs gives us a potential way to switch to that. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
(Replying to two messages at once as they seem related)
Anthony wrote:
> But it's quite a leap from "some databases (e.g. white pages)
> are non-copyrightable in some jurisdictions" and "databases
> are non-copyrightable". In fact, I'd say it's quite plainly false.
Oh, absolutely. Copyright and database right law is sufficiently complex,
and unclear, when applied to primarily factual data that it would be a brave
person who made any unambiguous statement like the latter... especially here
in England, where you can probably copyright your own farts.
It's not a binary situation where CC-BY-SA never works and ODbL always
works. Rather, ODbL provides a very significantly higher likelihood of
protection.
> [second message]
> You must be misreading them. ODbL is weak copyleft, plus a
> database rights license, plus a contract agreement. CC-BY-SA is
> strong copyleft. Do you dispute that, or do you claim that these
> two are in the same spirit?
You weren't asking me :) , but I'd dispute that. I wouldn't say one was
weaker or stronger than the other: ODbL's share-alike is simply more clearly
defined for data.
The canonical example of "strong copyleft" is the GPL - a software licence
whose copyleft persists on any software you build from the same source code.
In the same vein, CC-BY-SA is a "strong copyleft" creative works licence,
and ODbL is a "strong copyleft" data licence. A "weak copyleft" data
licence, taking the LGPL as example, would allow you to create derivative
databases from OSM where copyright persisted into the street data but not
(say) any road speed data which you had mixed with it - even though the road
speed data relies on the street data to function. ODbL doesn't allow that
(and I believe that was a deliberate choice by its authors).
Because CC-BY-SA is a creative works licence, not a data licence, its
"strong"/"weak" effects are unpredictable when applied to data. Six
examples:
- routing code designed solely to work with OSM data: copyleft does not
persist into code
- printed cartographic map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into
creative work
- web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied
programatically: copyleft does not persist into creative work
- web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied manually:
copyleft persists into creative work
- printed mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into mashup
data
- web mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft does not persist into
mashup data
ODbL, as a data licence applied to data, removes most of this
unpredictability. No doubt if one applied ODbL (a data licence) to creative
works, the results would be just as unpredictable as when one applies
CC-BY-SA to data. ;)
All such licences expressly limit the scope of what they can be applied to.
One way in which ODbL does it is the concept of a Produced Work; CC-BY-SA's
equivalent is a list of what it's applicable to. Which approach is clearer
is open to debate, as we've seen with the recent (interesting) posts here
about CC 3.0.
The other way is with the "collective works" clause in ODbL and CC-BY-SA (or
a "collection" in CC 3.0). The GPL has a similar concept: FSF call it an
"aggregate". As the GPL FAQ says:
> By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
> communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
> programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
> normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
> communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal
> data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts
> as combined into a larger program.
which avid readers of this list will recognise as not being entirely
different to the discussion we were having a few months back about
collective databases, in which Matt very generously titled a similar concept
("if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough") "the Fairhurst
Doctrine".
Is one "stronger" than the other? I don't think there's one easy answer. On
the one hand, ODbL has some provisions which require the end-user to give
more back: in particular, the GPL-like requirement to release source. On the
other, some items are caught within CC-BY-SA's copyleft and not ODbL's. (I'm
quite prepared to believe that there may be items that are caught by ODbL's
copyleft and not CC-BY-SA's, given the existence of "loopholes" in CC-BY-SA
such as the programatically-generated derivative one.)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5490444.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote: If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. +1 ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution. What it isn't is share-alike for produced works. Even BY-SA doesn't cover absolutely everything it touches. It doesn't cover collective works, for example. This may not matter to you or me but it is controversial for photographers when their BY-SA work is used to illustrate a non-BY-SA article. Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in what are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM community that I've encountered. ODbL achieves that without sacrificing share-alike on the *database*. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 2 September 2010 02:25, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey wrote: >> "maps" are expressly treated as "artistic works" by s.4(2)(a) of the >> Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). > > Pretty much the same thing in the US. "pictorial, graphic, and > sculptural works" are included as examples of copyrightable works, and > "maps" are included under "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works". Yes - I didn't want to bore 8-), though there's a subtle difference in that the US statute originates in a constitutional provision permitting Congress to promote the progress of science, whereas the UK Parliament can pass whatever it likes (as also in Australia). I don't think that's relevant in this case, but it means that it is possible to inject more policy into a USian debate. Even in French law - where the fundamental object of protection is a "work of the mind", the Code expressly includes "geographical maps" as "works of the mind" (L112-2). > > Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part > of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are > maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I > agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that "a GIS > database [is] essentially a computerized map" and "may be entitled to > protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a > 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well" (see Open Records Law, GIS, and > Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, > https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). > I'm inclined to agree, at least for the UK. Dando's analysis of course doesn't follow through (because we have no Feist) but I think UK authority bears a similar conclusion. I'd guess Australia was the same, but I don't have the same thorough knowledge of it. > > Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA > 3.0. > > I'd certainly argue that "maps", as used in that license, include GIS > databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's > comment that a GIS database is "essentially a computerized map" as > evidence. Ultimately, if it became a matter of dispute, and judge > and/or jury would decide, and we can only make educated guesses about > whether or not they'd agree. Oh, that seems highly likely. The problem with CC-BY-SA 3.0 is not whether a "Work" can include a map, nor even (in our view it seems) whether "map" in the licence include the OSM database, but whether or not CC-BY-SA 3.0 extends to works that are the subject of the sui generis right or not. It is not clear whether "other applicable laws" (in clause 2 say) would or would not include it, or even whether "copyright" would be construed to include protections like copyright. I think the express qualification of rights over database in the definition of "Work" would suggest not. If there's no copyright in the applicable law and CC-BY-SA 3.0 only covers copyright it doesn't matter whether GIS databases are included in maps as a matter of construction of "Work" since the licence wouldn't reach so far. But maybe you meant to imply all that and I wasn't reading carefully enough. If so, sorry. > > On the other hand, it might not matter, as I'd also argue that the OSM > database is a copyrightable compilation. As to that, Ms. Peterson > Dando says "in the context of copyright law, GIS databases are > compilations which may be copyrighted". That's something that is likely to vary more across the world I'm afraid. In particular some GIS databases might not get over the "own intellectual creation" hurdle. > > Finally, I want to be fair and point out that while (or even if) the > OSM database is copyrightable, that doesn't mean the copyright on it > extends very far. Again quoting Lori Peterson Dando, "Even though a > GIS database may be copyrightable as a compilation or a map, the > protection afforded by copyright may be thin in light of the Feist and > Mason decisions." Right. That's even more difficult because, as you know, the approach taken around the world to the way in which one assesses infringement is complicated. When US lawyers talk about "thin" protection they don't quite mean the same thing as we do and so on. > > To give a specific example, I'd say a routing database created from > OSM data, suitable for running a shortest path algorithm and providing > driving directions, would be completely public domain and > non-copyrightable, in the US and in many other jurisdictions. Right, because it takes only the factual content and not the work. That seems plausible to me in so far as I understand the US authorities. > > And that, I'd say, is a flaw in CC-BY-SA. Because it means someone in > a sui generis database rights jurisdiction could take OSM, make a > routing database out of it, improve that routing database, and then > sue people under database rights law for using those improvements. At > least
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote: > > If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. +1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 2 September 2010 03:25, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey wrote: >> "maps" are expressly treated as "artistic works" by s.4(2)(a) of the >> Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). > > Pretty much the same thing in the US. "pictorial, graphic, and > sculptural works" are included as examples of copyrightable works, and > "maps" are included under "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works". > >> Whether some or all of the OSM is a "map" is another question - which >> I guess is the one you are asking. > > Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part > of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are > maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I > agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that "a GIS > database [is] essentially a computerized map" and "may be entitled to > protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a > 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well" (see Open Records Law, GIS, and > Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, > https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). > >> I just wanted to make the point that "images" isn't a category much used in >> copyright >> definitions > > Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA > 3.0. > > I'd certainly argue that "maps", as used in that license, include GIS > databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's > comment that a GIS database is "essentially a computerized map" as > evidence. I'd argue that in a big part this may be a result of the changed meaning of the word map and not the "intent" of that law. Some decades ago it was very difficult to create a map that didn't include a great deal of interpretation of facts and creativity, or at least expertise, but today it's possible to extract just the factual part and store in a database with just a little bit of interpretation which can be accounted to errors or artifacts of digitisation, all this without knowing more than using a gps. I wonder how much you can abuse this to get protection of copyright, for example by building something of which your database is a map and then claiming copyright. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey wrote: > "maps" are expressly treated as "artistic works" by s.4(2)(a) of the > Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Pretty much the same thing in the US. "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" are included as examples of copyrightable works, and "maps" are included under "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works". > Whether some or all of the OSM is a "map" is another question - which > I guess is the one you are asking. Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that "a GIS database [is] essentially a computerized map" and "may be entitled to protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well" (see Open Records Law, GIS, and Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). > I just wanted to make the point that "images" isn't a category much used in > copyright > definitions Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'd certainly argue that "maps", as used in that license, include GIS databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's comment that a GIS database is "essentially a computerized map" as evidence. Ultimately, if it became a matter of dispute, and judge and/or jury would decide, and we can only make educated guesses about whether or not they'd agree. On the other hand, it might not matter, as I'd also argue that the OSM database is a copyrightable compilation. As to that, Ms. Peterson Dando says "in the context of copyright law, GIS databases are compilations which may be copyrighted". Finally, I want to be fair and point out that while (or even if) the OSM database is copyrightable, that doesn't mean the copyright on it extends very far. Again quoting Lori Peterson Dando, "Even though a GIS database may be copyrightable as a compilation or a map, the protection afforded by copyright may be thin in light of the Feist and Mason decisions." To give a specific example, I'd say a routing database created from OSM data, suitable for running a shortest path algorithm and providing driving directions, would be completely public domain and non-copyrightable, in the US and in many other jurisdictions. And that, I'd say, is a flaw in CC-BY-SA. Because it means someone in a sui generis database rights jurisdiction could take OSM, make a routing database out of it, improve that routing database, and then sue people under database rights law for using those improvements. At least, under CC-BY-SA 3.0, I think they could. Yes, the ODbL fixes that. Unfortunately it "fixes" too many other things, that weren't broken in the first place. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 22:41, Anthony wrote: > > I'm not even sure what maps as images means. If a map is described in > XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a "map as an image"? > Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ef/Aeroway-helipad.png and > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/cd/Bierkrug32x32.png) were > omitted or placed in a different file. Just the lines > (dashed/dotted/etc), the filled areas (colors or patterns), and the > text were included. > > Is OSM a project to make maps, or a project to collect factual data > about the world? "maps" are expressly treated as "artistic works" by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Whether some or all of the OSM is a "map" is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. The point being that "image" is not a UK copyright category, the main category is "artistic work" of which a "graphic work" is a subcategory one member of which is a "map". Section 10 of the (Australian) Copyright Act 1968 does the same job (where the categories are "artistic work"/"drawing" which includes "map"). The Australians inherit their copyright law from the same source as we do in the UK and there is still considerable cross-fertilisation of ideas (the High Court of Australia being particularly respected here). I could go on but it would bore. I just wanted to make the point that "images" isn't a category much used in copyright definitions, unless referring to photographs/films and so on where the "image" is a recording of light - which a map isn't except indirectly. There's a conflict of authority in the UK over whether a work can belong to several categories at once. I don't mean whether a work can have elements that could be more than one class of work (like pictures in a book) but where the same creative content is both. For example a circuit diagram has been held to be a literary work (because it is written in the language of an electrical engineer) but also an artistic work at the same time. So, maybe something can be a map, a copyrightable database and a (sui generis right) database at the same time. Who knows. Sorry, its late and I am meandering a bit. The short point is: none of this is even slightly unproblematic. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote: > On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >> >> Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to >> databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps >> however (possibly this only means maps as images though) > > It is my understanding that they are talking about maps as images but IANAL. I'm not even sure what maps as images means. If a map is described in XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a "map as an image"? Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ef/Aeroway-helipad.png and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/cd/Bierkrug32x32.png) were omitted or placed in a different file. Just the lines (dashed/dotted/etc), the filled areas (colors or patterns), and the text were included. Is OSM a project to make maps, or a project to collect factual data about the world? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to > databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps > however (possibly this only means maps as images though) > It is my understanding that they are talking about maps as images but IANAL. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 15:42, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Francis Davey schrieb: >> >> Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the >> copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent >> assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to >> certain exceptions. > > While that may be true, anyone not trusting the organization that operates > all of the software and hardware of the project (the OSMF in our case) > should not have contributed any data to the project as a whole in the first > place. I disagree, you can upload your data, use their editors, and you get a suitably licensed planet snapshot on the output + a nice rendering, this is probably all you need to care about. Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps however (possibly this only means maps as images though) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Anthony schrieb: >> Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 >> contributors. > > So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org project? No, I'm saying they don't have 100,000 contributors (with the obvious context that I'm talking about contributors of "significant contributions"). >> CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an "and later" clause. > > Where "later", i.e. 3.0 explicitely does not apply to databases like OSM. Where does CC-BY-SA 3.0 say that it does not apply to "databases like OSM"? 3.0 explicitly does not apply to non-copyrightable collections of data. On the other hand, it explicitly does apply to maps. >> And ODbL is not in the "same spirit" as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL >> is in the "same spirit" as GFDL. > > That's your opinion, and anyone with legal knowledge in here seems to > dispute both of those statements. You must be misreading them. ODbL is weak copyleft, plus a database rights license, plus a contract agreement. CC-BY-SA is strong copyleft. Do you dispute that, or do you claim that these two are in the same spirit? If CC-BY-SA is the same spirit as ODbL, there wouldn't be any reason to switch. > But of course, you can't use a > documentation license for creative works, a code license for documentation > or a creative license for a mostly factual database - at least not > reasonably. And that's what all our relicensing is about in the end. So my analogy was correct. You agree ODbL is not in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA, just like LGPL is not in the same spirit as GFDL. You just think the spirit of ODbL is better for OSM than the spirit of CC-BY-SA. As I've said before, if ODbL *were* in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA...if it were strong copyleft as opposed to weak copyleft...if it allowed distribution of images without distribution of source... If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. It isn't. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Francis Davey schrieb: Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to certain exceptions. While that may be true, anyone not trusting the organization that operates all of the software and hardware of the project (the OSMF in our case) should not have contributed any data to the project as a whole in the first place. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony schrieb: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and "and later" clause). Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org project? CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an "and later" clause. Where "later", i.e. 3.0 explicitely does not apply to databases like OSM. So only one more reason for us to switch elsewhere. But we know that already. And ODbL is not in the "same spirit" as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL is in the "same spirit" as GFDL. That's your opinion, and anyone with legal knowledge in here seems to dispute both of those statements. But of course, you can't use a documentation license for creative works, a code license for documentation or a creative license for a mostly factual database - at least not reasonably. And that's what all our relicensing is about in the end. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:22:12PM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight > > simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining > > data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings, > > altitude data. Brushing away integration with other databases makes > > the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for > > free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible. > > they can use the osm data. come one. They just have to make a package > called osm-data and distribute it separately. that is like saying that > the gcc makes your programs gpl. > think again. But FlightGear, for instance, currently uses "cooked" scenery files, distributing OSM data separately is not an option. So it is not included at all. (I am not associated with FlightGear). Albertas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Am 29.08.2010 11:10, schrieb jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > yes, i think i see what you are saying: > the license will be the only protection against third party abuse. > I think that copyleft is good enough. I believe our user base and fast update times are what really protects us against abuse. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 31 August 2010 16:00, Robert Kaiser wrote: > > No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all > your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the > OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to > license it as they please - possible with certain restrictions (like always > making it available with a free and open license, as the CT states). If you don't care about what someone does with your copyright work, then you can certainly assign the copyright (or database right or whatever) to that someone without a great deal of difficulty. You can also assign some or all of what you have created (or in many jurisdictions and with some more careful restrictions, what you will create). If you want to restrict what the person you assign to does with the copyright, then either you want to avoid assigning and retain ownership - a suitably drafted exclusive licence could have that effect in England and Wales, or you want Isome kind of reversion on condition subsequent could also work, though it would be more complicated. Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to certain exceptions. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Maarten Deen schrieb: >> >> On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote: >>> >>> It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for >>> projects of non-profit foundations. >> >> Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper. > > No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all > your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the > OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to > license it as they please - possible with certain restrictions (like always > making it available with a free and open license, as the CT states). > > Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright > assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of > upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and "and later" clause). CC-By-SA 2 does have this kind of provision (1.0 didn't), by stating which licenses it is comptaible with, unfortunately it is not helpful in this case because CC-By-SA seems to have been a wrong choice from the start. The ODbL with it's upgrade clause should be better. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright > assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of > upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and "and later" clause). Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an "and later" clause. And ODbL is not in the "same spirit" as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL is in the "same spirit" as GFDL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/8/31 Liz : >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The >>> import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): >>> "At the time of writing (spring 2008), >> >> >> well spring isn't in March (here) >> spring starts shortly >> so whoever wrote that was a little careless. > > > due to the fantastic wiki-software I was nevertheless able to derive > the date when this note was amended. > > cheers, > Martin > > btw.: The imported dataset seems to be this one (I followed a link in the > wiki): > Source: 25k Topographic Map > Map: VGI (Vojno Geografski Institut Jugoslavije) Yugoslav Military > Geographic Institute > Years: 1970's and early 80's > Classes: No classification (categorization) > Features: Line Feature Class > Coverage: about ~50% - 60% > > 30 year old uncategorized roads derived from 25k topographic maps. I > am aware that this is better than nothing, but it is IMHO not at all > an argument against the license change. > that is just one file of many. we have other imports as well. more coming. thanks, mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Liz wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The >> import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): >> "At the time of writing (spring 2008), > > For me, I heard about the new license, but never considered that this new license would be incompatible. yes, I was negligent in understanding this important fact, but I find it also a bad idea (no compatibility). anyway, I don't fully understand the new license and really, being conservative, I will wait until it works and then jump on the boat later. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > but it is IMHO not at all > an argument against the license change. So we'll get back to the beginning Multiple imports have been arranged before and after any particular date, whether March 2008, any time up to May 2010. However, March 2008 has been specified, so I check the archives of legal-talk and find a discussion about the LINZ import. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-March/000858.html In this discussion, which covers the need for attribution, and how it is to enabled, ODbL hardly rates a mention. In fact, someone suggested that ODbL would make the attribution easier. No where does anyone say that this data CC-by-SA, is going to be incompatible with the 'new licence'. So the NZ mappers ahve followed the exact advice given, gone to legal-talk mailing list and subsequently gone ahead with importing CC-by-SA data into OSM. Now, have they been a little careless, a little remiss or whatever? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
2010/8/31 Liz : > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The >> import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): >> "At the time of writing (spring 2008), > > > well spring isn't in March (here) > spring starts shortly > so whoever wrote that was a little careless. due to the fantastic wiki-software I was nevertheless able to derive the date when this note was amended. cheers, Martin btw.: The imported dataset seems to be this one (I followed a link in the wiki): Source: 25k Topographic Map Map: VGI (Vojno Geografski Institut Jugoslavije) Yugoslav Military Geographic Institute Years: 1970's and early 80's Classes: No classification (categorization) Features: Line Feature Class Coverage: about ~50% - 60% 30 year old uncategorized roads derived from 25k topographic maps. I am aware that this is better than nothing, but it is IMHO not at all an argument against the license change. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The > import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): > "At the time of writing (spring 2008), well spring isn't in March (here) spring starts shortly so whoever wrote that was a little careless. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > wrote: > Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight > simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining > data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings, > altitude data. Brushing away integration with other databases makes > the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for > free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible. they can use the osm data. come one. They just have to make a package called osm-data and distribute it separately. that is like saying that the gcc makes your programs gpl. think again. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
2010/8/29 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com : > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that >> whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future >> license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. > > Not at all, I never consider that OSm would move to an incompatible > contract system and away from copyright/copyleft. That idea is totally > alien to me. > > I have trusted that OSMF would treat the old data as valuable, if they > don't, then it is not my problem. actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): "At the time of writing (spring 2008), you are encouraged to read up on the relicensing process currently being considered by the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and consider how your import may be affected if we proceed with a move to the Open Data Commons Database Licence" http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Import/Guidelines&oldid=83702 cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 01:09 PM, James Livingston wrote: On 30/08/2010, at 3:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote: It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for projects of non-profit foundations. It can yes, however there are a lot of developers who refuse to work on projects that require it, so it's a trade-off you have to make. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a cost to requiring assignment. (I have one or two patches I've submitted to various projects which are sitting unapplied because I didn't realise they required assignment) Yes that's a fair point. I'd argue that it depends on the project. I've signed a couple of GNU copyright assignments but I wouldn't sign an Ubuntu one. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 12:09 PM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myers wrote: That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence. *If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very low barrier for change to occur. We can't just agree to the ODBL we have to take the poison of the CT with it... This is getting a bit dramatic. Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet* distribution. Or non-US law. Or... Stick to the comments made, not what you wish they were... The comment made ignores the full extent of the changes made to the GPL and thereby misrepresented the change as being less major than it is. The point I was originally trying to make is that *you* may regard the switch from GPL 2 to GPL 3 as minor, but *some* people don't. Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0 doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it doesn't cover DB right) . It doesn't effect me, I'm just repeating what others have told me, they seem to be of a different opinion... Then they are wrong AFAIK. I believe CC-by-SA v2 also allows you to also use country specific cc-by-sa licenses, so take your pick on that, the outcome is the same... Not for data released under a country licence that covers DB right. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30/08/2010, at 3:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for > projects of non-profit foundations. It can yes, however there are a lot of developers who refuse to work on projects that require it, so it's a trade-off you have to make. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a cost to requiring assignment. (I have one or two patches I've submitted to various projects which are sitting unapplied because I didn't realise they required assignment) -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective > against such an attack. I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response about it. Consider for example if someone in the US[0] takes the ODbL-licensed planet dump provided from OSMF, and creates a North American extract of it, and makes that extract available (under ODbL) from their website. Another person/company in the US downloads that extract and uses it in a way that violates the ODbL. What can we do to enforce the ODbL? Since the US doesn't have database rights, we can't use that part of ODbL. Since copyright doesn't cover the OSM data (don't reply arguing just about that) in the US, we can't use that part of the ODbL. So the only way of enforcing the license would be through the contract parts. However the contract (if one even exists, which is arguable) would be between the person making the extract and the person using it, how can anyone other than the extract-creator enforce the license? There's also the issue that when the person hosting the extract makes it available, there is nothing forcing them to make it available in such as way that a contract would be formed. Host a copy of the planet or an extract for people to download with just a link, and I would think that you'd get a contract of adhesion at best, and that concept doesn't exist in some places. IANAL, etc - James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myers wrote: > That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence. *If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very low barrier for change to occur. We can't just agree to the ODBL we have to take the poison of the CT with it... > Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet* > distribution. Or non-US law. Or... Stick to the comments made, not what you wish they were... > Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0 > doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it > doesn't cover DB right) . It doesn't effect me, I'm just repeating what others have told me, they seem to be of a different opinion... I believe CC-by-SA v2 also allows you to also use country specific cc-by-sa licenses, so take your pick on that, the outcome is the same... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myers wrote: I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You are trying to claim that open ended relicensing is a good thing, but at the same time you think trying to relicense a major project like linux from GPL to BSD would be unwise, but that's effectively what is being attempted here with the new CTs... That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence. If you could explain this to Linus Torvalds I'd be most grateful. What's so hard to understand, software patents weren't an issue when the GPL v2 was published, but were later on which is why they Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet* distribution. Or non-US law. Or... attempted to address the issue, just like cc-by-sa v2 doesn't seem to cover database rights, but cc-by-sa v3 does... Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0 doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it doesn't cover DB right) . - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myers wrote: > I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the > majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You are trying to claim that open ended relicensing is a good thing, but at the same time you think trying to relicense a major project like linux from GPL to BSD would be unwise, but that's effectively what is being attempted here with the new CTs... > If you could explain this to Linus Torvalds I'd be most grateful. What's so hard to understand, software patents weren't an issue when the GPL v2 was published, but were later on which is why they attempted to address the issue, just like cc-by-sa v2 doesn't seem to cover database rights, but cc-by-sa v3 does... evolution, not revolution... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 11:28 AM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myers wrote: The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL 3 was seen as a major change. No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and spin it anyway you like, I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not revolution If you could explain this to Linus Torvalds I'd be most grateful. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myers wrote: > The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL > 3 was seen as a major change. No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and spin it anyway you like, GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not revolution ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 11:06 AM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers wrote: The majority (> 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an argument against allowing relicencing. There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that are merely an extension of the existing license, than changing licenses, that is going from GPL to BSD... The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL 3 was seen as a major change. The GPL 3 was a major change in order to meet major changes in the threats to free software. The meaning and requirements of distribution, the nature of enforcement, what is covered by the licence, and the law it is based on were all changed. But these changes were all to ensure that the GPL does what it is intended to, they were changes in method not intention. The "or later version" licencing of most GPL 2 projects meant that the change was possible where it was felt to be worthwhile. Which is now for the majority of projects. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Am 30.08.2010 12:03, schrieb Rob Myers: On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote: Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just fine. > *) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1) Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle, or prefer GPL 2 to GPL 3, or cannot upgrade even if they wanted to. The Linux kernel is a good example of all three. The majority (> 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an argument against allowing relicencing. Even if you don't consider the changes from GPL v2 vs. v3 to be subtle (which were just an example anyway, I could have picked several other examples) you will have to concede that those changes don't fundamentally change the spirit of the license. But this fundamental change is what's currently at stake with section 3 of the CTs. Joerg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers wrote: > The majority (> 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an > argument against allowing relicencing. There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that are merely an extension of the existing license, than changing licenses, that is going from GPL to BSD... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote: Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just fine. > *) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1) Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle, or prefer GPL 2 to GPL 3, or cannot upgrade even if they wanted to. The Linux kernel is a good example of all three. The majority (> 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an argument against allowing relicencing. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Am 29.08.2010 17:52, schrieb Rob Myers: The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they exist. OSM will be no different. Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just fine. Joerg *) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote: > > you are asking us to give up our copyright and contract our data out to > > you, but what do we get in return? > > You get the same as you do now, just effected differently and more > effectively. How can 'nothing' be effected differently or more effectively the alternate view is we get other contributions returned to the system but i am not convinced that there is anything more effective in that return under the new system, in fact i think that less will be returned. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 17:24, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight > simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining > data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings, > altitude data. Brushing away integration with other databases makes > the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for > free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible. Which makes the assumption that those other sources of data can freely be mixed. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 23:41, Eric Jarvies wrote: > > > Eric Jarvies > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com" > wrote: >> >> unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does >> Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no >> rights. Let me try to clarify what I am saying: Whether or not someone contributing data to OSM has any IP rights in that data, or whether the OSMF (or anyone else) can exercise any rights over data that has been included in OSM or indeed the whole of OSM, depends on (i) jurisdictional questions and (ii) the nature and quality of the data. There are relatively complicated questions of copyright law at work. The fact that the courts have been deciding questions on copyright in compilations/databases illustrates this. But that's not important for what I'm saying. If OSMF can us IP rights to stop people using part or all of OSM in any particular jurisdiction then you don't need any additional protection (you already have it). In my example Y could be restrained by injunction or otherwise pressed to stop. As I understand it the desire of the new licence scheme is to supplement IP protection by using a contractual mechanism. It answers the questions: "what do we do about jurisdictions where there is no protection"? Some places are generous about copyright (England for example has a really low threshold of originality in general, and so before the database directive was about as generous as they come) but others are not. Some places have a specific database right (like the EU) but most don't. So one of the points that seems to be in issue is whether there needs to be a contract style protection or not. People seem to be asking "do we need this?". My point - in answer to someone who suggested it might just be an implementation detail - is to try to explain that it isn't. The contract bit of the new licence won't protect you in the same way as copyright law + licensing does. It has no automatic way of applying sanctions to third parties like Y in my example. Sure *if* Y can be stopped another way, then great, but the contractual element is not needed. I'm not arguing that using contractual protection is wrong or ineffective. My vague impression is that lawyers were asked to come up with something to fill the gap left by the lack of legal protection for databases in some places, and this is what they came up with. I suspect that it is pretty much the best you can do. And its not quite as bad as all that. If Y and X collude to get the data out, the fact that Y is not a contracting party may not help them. Most jurisdictions have protections against that sort of thing (eg as "conspiracy" or "tortious inducement of breach of contract" in English law) but mileage varies even more as you might imagine and it makes things more difficult. The USB drive example is a good one because X and Y would not be connected (though of course Y would probably be a thief, or at least a tortfeasor of some kind, in taking the stick). I have a deep academic and professional interest in the copyright and other legal questions raised by what you are doing, which is why I read and occasionally contribute to discussions on this list. I'm not myself a mapper and so have no right to try to influence what you do. I hope no-one objects to my occasional comments. All I am trying to do is inject some legal clarity as much as I can. Of course its generally not a good thing to be doing legally interesting things, but take heart from the fact that people have been litigating copyright in maps one way or the other for centuries. There's an early 19th century case in which our Lord Chancellor was surprised that you could copyright a map (after all - its just factual information about "the world" where's the originality in that?) but conceded that the weight of authority was that you could. When I was preparing a talk on copyright in images I wanted to illustrate it with a map of the area in question and of course OSM so thanks for that. > > Y has everything to do with the data, in the context explained above. The > point is; it is already difficult(and expensive, time consuming) to defend > rights on said data, it will become even moreso. > A slightly sharper way of putting it is that using the additional protections given by contract may add complexity to any legal action you take. In practice its usually nice to have more causes of action to plead, if done well it can put the frighteners on the defendant. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: >>> As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that >>> requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL) >>> and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring >>> certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be >>> virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they >>> please. >> >> unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does >> Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no >> rights. > > Y has everything to do with the data, in the context explained above. The > point is; it is already difficult(and expensive, time consuming) to defend > rights on said data, it will become even moreso. Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective against such an attack. Even if someone could then use data and reverse engineer it, if I see someone who copies my work 1-1 there might be some protection. If they find a way to extract the points and use them commercially and legally, then maybe they will also fall victim to the same tactics. It is not said that we cannot use the same weapons against them, if they end up "stealing" our data legally, then we can just legally steal their changes back, no? What if the data is locked down by all these NDS and contracts, but someone posts it to wikileaks? Then it could be downloaded and facts extracted by out. This will need more thought. Copyleft is at least very simple. - My conclusion is, if it aint broke, dont fix it. As stated before, let the proponents of the new license setup a beta test server and let people import changesets as they wish. OSMF has enough servers. I have the feeling that the big players pushing for the new license also have some cash to spend on this as well. Then we can see what is really going to happen without destabilizing the great thing we have build up to now. The community can then decide what and when they want to contribute. Users should have to choice to post changes to one or many servers. These types of features are sorely needed anyway in osm, we need to support multiple distributed servers, we need more robustness. All big companies use beta trials, why not osm? mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Eric Jarvies Sent from my iPad On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com" wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey wrote: >> On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets wrote: >>> >>> Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an >>> idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing >>> their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, >>> contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and >>> the managers. > >> As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that >> requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL) >> and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring >> certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be >> virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they >> please. > > unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does > Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no > rights. Y has everything to do with the data, in the context explained above. The point is; it is already difficult(and expensive, time consuming) to defend rights on said data, it will become even moreso. > >> Of course if there's an IP right as well Y might be breaching that, >> but then you wouldn't need to use the contract, only a licence. > > yes, i think i see what you are saying: > the license will be the only protection against third party abuse. > I think that copyleft is good enough. > > mike > > ___ > 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] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
> On 08/29/2010 05:58 PM, Maarten Deen wrote: >> > > I'm merely >> pointing out that it is impossible to ask from a contributor to accept >> the current license *and every imaginable other license* because we >> don't know how the license will change in the future. > > We do know how the licence will change: it will change to address > challenges to the freedom to use maps and geodata freely. > >> That, basically, is the same as asking to sign a blank sheet of paper. > > It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for > projects of non-profit foundations. > > - Rob. This brings up an interesting point - is OSM a project of OSMF? Legally it can not be so, for OSM existed first, and no vote has been undertaken to transfer OSM to OSMF. OSMF owns and runs the hardware, and more recently the domain name(s) have become OSMF property. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
> On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets wrote: >> >> Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft >> is an >> idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing >> their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright >> law, >> contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers >> and >> the managers. > > Just a point of information (I don't have a view on what the right > thing to do is concerning re-licensing nor should I): there is a > fundamental difference between licensing a property right (such as > copyright) and contract, and that is that the contract will only > protect you against a breach by the immediate end user. > > As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that > requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL) > and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring > certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be > virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they > please. > > In the context of the web, Y scraping X's data where X has failed to > require that not happen would probably be sufficient and not an > unlikely circumstance at all. > > Of course if there's an IP right as well Y might be breaching that, > but then you wouldn't need to use the contract, only a licence. > > Contract doesn't get you what IP licensing will get you, but that > maybe the best you can do. Don't imagine that its just an > implementation detail. > > -- > Francis Davey > Thankyou Francis for an erudite explanation. My example was the data stick left on a train (popular a couple of years ago in the UK) and any person picking up the data stick, who is then not bound by the contract. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote: On 08/29/2010 05:58 PM, Maarten Deen wrote: > I'm merely pointing out that it is impossible to ask from a contributor to accept the current license *and every imaginable other license* because we don't know how the license will change in the future. We do know how the licence will change: it will change to address challenges to the freedom to use maps and geodata freely. You do know in which general direction this license change is heading, but you have no idea how the license will change in the future. And you can not expect a contributor to accept the current license and every imaginable other license because OSM might change to some yet unknown license in the future. Please understand the point I'm making. It's not about the current license change, it's about the comment > I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that > whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future > license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. You cannot make current data compatible with future license changes if you don't know what the license changes will be. We know about the upcoming license change, we do not know about any further license changes. That, basically, is the same as asking to sign a blank sheet of paper. It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for projects of non-profit foundations. Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/29/2010 05:58 PM, Maarten Deen wrote: > I'm merely pointing out that it is impossible to ask from a contributor to accept the current license *and every imaginable other license* because we don't know how the license will change in the future. We do know how the licence will change: it will change to address challenges to the freedom to use maps and geodata freely. That, basically, is the same as asking to sign a blank sheet of paper. It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for projects of non-profit foundations. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Rob Myers wrote: On 08/29/2010 08:21 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: > So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. It's because no-one can predict how the environment in which OSM exists will look in 10 years. The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they exist. OSM will be no different. I am not saying OSM may not or can not change its license. I'm merely pointing out that it is impossible to ask from a contributor to accept the current license *and every imaginable other license* because we don't know how the license will change in the future. That, basically, is the same as asking to sign a blank sheet of paper. Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/29/2010 12:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: you are asking us to give up our copyright and contract our data out to you, but what do we get in return? You get the same as you do now, just effected differently and more effectively. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/29/2010 08:21 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: > So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. It's because no-one can predict how the environment in which OSM exists will look in 10 years. The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they exist. OSM will be no different. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/29/2010 06:57 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: no, copyleft is only based on copyright. sorry. This is why I find it easier to refer to Share-Alike for OSM. But in either case it's not the legal form that's important, it's the social content. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:40:23AM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: > Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an > idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing > their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, > contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and > the managers. Copyright is typically used to restrict distribution. You can only distribute copyright materials with permission from the copyright holders (not counting exceptions to copyright). Copyleft explicity uses copyright to ensure that freedoms to use, copy and distribute a work are passed on to everyone who obtains the work. With copyleft, no further restrictions are added (apart from those that prevent you from restricting the rights of others to copy, use and redistribute the work). For Openstreetmap under the ODbL + DbCL licences: There may be copyright in the actual data, so the DbCL covers that. Where it is deemed that there is no copyright, that licence is effectively meaningless, but since there are no restrictions provided by copyright in the first place it doesn’t matter. (This licence does not attempt to reciprocate the freedoms, so is not copyleft.) There may be copyright in the compilation of the database, and in Europe there is database right, which restricts copying and distribution of databases (and parts of them). The ODbL covers these, and gives permission to use, copy and redistribute the database. Where compilations are not covered by copyright (are there any places?) the parts of the licence covering copyright are probably null, but then there was no copyright anyway so no restrictions on copying and distribution were there (from copyright) in the first place. Where there is no concept of database right, the database right parts of the ODbL are null, but then there were no restrictions from database rights in the first place. That would be copyleft (and “database left”). The ODbL goes further by using contract law to either enforce freedoms to use, copy and distribute in the same way as the “missing” copyright or database right would have allowed, or to add restrictions where there were none anyway, depending on how you see 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets wrote: >> >> Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an >> idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing >> their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, >> contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and >> the managers. > As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that > requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL) > and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring > certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be > virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they > please. unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no rights. > Of course if there's an IP right as well Y might be breaching that, > but then you wouldn't need to use the contract, only a licence. yes, i think i see what you are saying: the license will be the only protection against third party abuse. I think that copyleft is good enough. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets wrote: > > Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an > idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing > their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, > contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and > the managers. Just a point of information (I don't have a view on what the right thing to do is concerning re-licensing nor should I): there is a fundamental difference between licensing a property right (such as copyright) and contract, and that is that the contract will only protect you against a breach by the immediate end user. As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL) and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they please. In the context of the web, Y scraping X's data where X has failed to require that not happen would probably be sufficient and not an unlikely circumstance at all. Of course if there's an IP right as well Y might be breaching that, but then you wouldn't need to use the contract, only a licence. Contract doesn't get you what IP licensing will get you, but that maybe the best you can do. Don't imagine that its just an implementation detail. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 18:16, Grant Slater wrote: > Of course we value all existing data but a few unfortunatly licensed > imports should not put undue restrict restrictions on the project. There will always be restrictions on the project, because there are lots of data sources and data users using data under lots of different licenses. if you must insist on making this remark, at least make it truthfully: "imports should not put undue restrictions on the project for end users." It still seems short sighted that current contributors must be the ones to suffer the shift in restrictions for the benefit of end users. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 07:23, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Duane, >> > > Not at all, I never consider that OSm would move to an incompatible > contract system and away from copyright/copyleft. That idea is totally > alien to me. > h4ck3rm1k3, please update the wiki to list under what license you received the information: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_iMMAP_Import Currently I cannot find listed at all. Am I correct in understanding the data is from the 1970s and 1980s? > I have trusted that OSMF would treat the old data as valuable, if they > don't, then it is not my problem. > Of course we value all existing data but a few unfortunatly licensed imports should not put undue restrict restrictions on the project. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 17:21, Maarten Deen wrote: > That's a bit silly. So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data > with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as > noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. And even Which is why the CTs are so ambiguous, so that only PD data can be safely imported... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Frederik Ramm wrote: Duane, I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. That's a bit silly. So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. And even if the general direction is known, it's not much use to ask to agree to a proposed license as this may not be the future license. How many of the contributors will agree to that? It's like saying "yeah, we now have CC-BY-SA-2, but this may change in the future and please sign this blank sheet of paper". My view: IMHO dataremoval is bad. Tag the old data which cannot be relicensed with "CC-BY-SA-2" and leave it there. Possibly bar it from getting changed (except deleted) in the API, but my feeling is that the people moving the license are the ones that have to make sure the old data will remain and will not be misused. You cannot expect #random mapper to roll over and play ball on every decision of the OSM board or license committee. Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Duane, > >> I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo >> information removed, > > I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that > whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future > license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. Not at all, I never consider that OSm would move to an incompatible contract system and away from copyright/copyleft. That idea is totally alien to me. I have trusted that OSMF would treat the old data as valuable, if they don't, then it is not my problem. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Nic Roets wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > wrote: >> >> > Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to >> > make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European >> > Union has the "Database Directive" but most other countries do not. >> > I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software >> > license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. >> >> copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on >> copyright and not a contract. >> please reread the gpl, read moglen; >> http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html > > Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an > idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing > their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, > contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and > the managers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft no, copyleft is only based on copyright. sorry. > > As giving rights to OSMF: It is just a pooling mechanism. Instead of 10,000 > contributors each having their own opinion about the next license, we then > only have a few ideas and the decision is made by voting. Then a few > contributors can't block something good because they're having a bad day. > > That is a completely different issue, that is copyright assignment or IP pooling. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 01:33, John Smith wrote: >> John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. > > Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years? > Hell no. I see it being sorted out fairly quickly. As per update email to talk-au list the LWG has been having difficulty arranging a telephone conference call upto now because of the number of timezones involved. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 10:27, Grant Slater wrote: > From what I can see the data is CC-BY. > http://www.archive.org/details/Kosova_Road_Data_from_iMMAP > The attribution question is still being dealt with by LWG's legal > council. I don't see there being an issue. I was going on what Mike had said, he made no reference to a wiki page. > John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 00:48, John Smith wrote: > On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that >> whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future >> license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. > > Since the data is CC-by-SA, it doesn't seem likely. >From what I can see the data is CC-BY. http://www.archive.org/details/Kosova_Road_Data_from_iMMAP The attribution question is still being dealt with by LWG's legal council. I don't see there being an issue. As has been said before and recorded in the LWG minutes, the LWG will of course look at these situations individually and also help re-negotiate existing imports where needed. John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a "continuity > fork" so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. > > A fork will be a very bad thing. Even if the users are split 80-20, there will be a lot of duplication. Some people will dual license and then there will be imports from the other branch of the fork. Computing resource requirements will nearly double. Outsiders will think that the community is not getting along. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that > whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future > license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. Since the data is CC-by-SA, it doesn't seem likely. > The license change is not my personal hobby so I'm surprised you should > single me out in the way you do, even using my name in message subjects. I'm > sorry if I should have hurt your feelings by pointing out that > Nearmap-derived data is only a minuscle part of OSM as a whole; I think that > it is important to refer to facts once in a while when emotions run high. What you don't seem to realise is while Nearmap might be a small fraction but your comments are in turn setting things up to make it MUCH more difficult to get data from suppliers in future, regardless if it is government entities, mapping companies or aerial imagery companies. This is commonly referred to as death by a thousand cuts, a small cut here and there wouldn't seem like much on their own, but combined it is enough to kill a bull. > I don't think that there is data in OSM that is so precious that we need to > risk OSM's future just to be able to hold on to that data. You also have to consider the human factor, people went to a lot of time, effort and trouble not only to import the data but to organise getting that data in the first place, only to be told that you wasted your efforts, so you've just insulted entire countries, you not only loose data but also those that put in the hard work because they'll completely give up trying to do anything, or they'll use their efforts elsewhere where people do appreciate their efforts. > Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a "continuity > fork" so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. And the people will go with that data, is that really what you want? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to > > make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European > > Union has the "Database Directive" but most other countries do not. > > I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software > > license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. > > copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on > copyright and not a contract. > please reread the gpl, read moglen; > http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html > Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and the managers. As giving rights to OSMF: It is just a pooling mechanism. Instead of 10,000 contributors each having their own opinion about the next license, we then only have a few ideas and the decision is made by voting. Then a few contributors can't block something good because they're having a bad day. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Duane, I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. The license change is not my personal hobby so I'm surprised you should single me out in the way you do, even using my name in message subjects. I'm sorry if I should have hurt your feelings by pointing out that Nearmap-derived data is only a minuscle part of OSM as a whole; I think that it is important to refer to facts once in a while when emotions run high. Removing data that is incompatible with our license is something we do almost every day. People accidentally import batches of "noncommercial" data - sure it hurts to remove it but should we change our license to "noncommercial" just to keep it? People in Germany have traced tons of buildings from sources that were incompatible with out license, and we removed them. Sometimes those who did the work left the project as a consequence because they felt that we shouldn't take legal issues so seriously. I don't think that there is data in OSM that is so precious that we need to risk OSM's future just to be able to hold on to that data. Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a "continuity fork" so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. 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] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 09:32, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > I wonder how long you are going to keep targeting Frederik as if he is the > only one to blame for this? He keeps making himself the target when he keeps insulting sections of the community like he does. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:22 AM, John Smith wrote: > I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo > information removed, another million objects that can be added in just > a few weeks? > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004107.html > > I wonder how many million of objects he plans to remove and in the > process upset contributors until there are no more contributors to > keep adding in these millions of objects. > I wonder how long you are going to keep targeting Frederik as if he is the only one to blame for this? I know you are frustrated with the whole licensing problem, but please, stop targeting people. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, another million objects that can be added in just a few weeks? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004107.html I wonder how many million of objects he plans to remove and in the process upset contributors until there are no more contributors to keep adding in these millions of objects. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > wrote: >> please see this as well, >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons >> > > What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a > CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual > information. > Quote: "Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons > licenses for informational databases, such as educational or > scientific databases." > Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/ > > Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a > Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information: > Reference: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html Well, lets look at this for a minute. < ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision. > > ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the > legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and > preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under > our CC-BY-SA license. So why is it not compatible? why do we need to relicense? > >> they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract... >> > > Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to > make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European > Union has the "Database Directive" but most other countries do not. > I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software > license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on copyright and not a contract. please reread the gpl, read moglen; http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html """The essence of copyright law, like other systems of property rules, is the power to exclude. The copyright holder is legally empowered to exclude all others from copying, distributing, and making derivative works. This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license--that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. """ Basically , you are asking us to give up our copyright and contract our data out to you, but what do we get in return? I don't see a need for this at all. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > please see this as well, > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons > What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual information. Quote: "Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases." Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/ Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information: Reference: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision. ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under our CC-BY-SA license. > they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract... > Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the "Database Directive" but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. PLEASE... Follow ups on legal-talk list. Thread started here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004221.html Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
