Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Steve wrote: John I would assert that you're more worried about perceived competition for your licenses JTW says: If this were the case, we'd have taken in the ODbL, or we'd have written something like it. With CC's position in the licensing space it'd have been quickly adopted - people have been pressing me to get a database license out for five years. This would be so much easier than arguing for no licenses that I wish it were true. Gad, I'd love to have something to recommend rather than give it all away and make it really free. Steve wrote: and that there are people out there who want to be able to keep attribution and share-alike. I appreciate that you're trying to stop people opening pandoras box and shoe horn the cornucopia of people who might want a database license in to the PDDL before they can figure out there are other options... but ultimately it's not going to work. Someone else, somewhere will try to do another ODbL even if you succeed stopping this one and ultimately people will use it. JTW says: This is deeply true and well taken. But as I've always tried to note, my job is to try and fight for the public domain in the sciences, and the existence of these licenses is a threat simply by the opening of the box (and Steve - thank you for this comment and appreciation. Seriously). Thus, I have to try to push the rock up the hill, however Sisyphean the task. Just because it's hard doesn't make it pointless. Unlike software, there is not a governing set of laws that require us to apply the ideas of property to create openness, and unlike software, the ideas of property may well hurt our task. Time will tell. I think OSM is a good community. I believe you've given me a good hearing, for which I thank you. And I accept that you've made the decision that you want SA. Based on a lengthy back and forth with Rufus and Jordan this morning, I'm going to take my high level issues with the license back to the okfn-list, and I'll keep lurking here but only to watch and answer questions. Steve wrote: The simplest use case I can think of are all the companies who have datasets that they're be happy with something like BY-SA but would never release anything under PDDL. It's not going to fly to just tell them all that they 'should' release things in to the public domain. This is true, and is fine for them. It just makes that data significantly less interoperable. I believe that many communities will come along and re-open that Pandora's Box, encode their own versions of share-alike, and we won't be able to put the data together. I hope I'm wrong, and the nice thing is that we'll have data in a few years to tell us the outcome. jtw ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
(contract fusion, database fission and anti-copyright-matter). Inspired :-) Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andy Allan Sent: 25 March 2009 7:09 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:34, Andy Allan wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 22 Mar 2009, at 06:08, 80n wrote: The complexity arguments are largely superfluous. [...] I get in my car every day and drive to work without knowing how the engine management system works but it's not a 'show stopper'. I disagree with you there Steve. The problem is that *we're the guys building the engine*, and yet we don't know how the engine management system works. I agree that the authors and groups who built the GPL need to understand it, at least to the degree possible with no training in law, but do I as a user and contributor to GNU/LINUX need to? That I thought was the point? A) The GPLEMU - an engine management unit already used in 14,000 models of car, and 12 other manufactures. I'm heading up the OCMcar project, and someone suggested using the GPLEMU. I see cars using the EMU all over the place. It's been roadtested for ten years. People have sued each other over it, and it's still fine. I'm pretty happy using the GPLEMU in the OCMcar project, even though I don't understand it. I don't really need to scrutinise it much. B) The ODbLEMU - an engine management unit that's not finished yet. It uses three technologies (contract fusion, database fission and anti-copyright-matter) that have never been tried before in combination. It's complex. It's untested. It's not even finished, but it will be real soon now. It's probably going to work, because the guys who are making it seem pretty smart and their hearts are in the right place, but then again, it might not. Reports back from other Physicst-legals suggest that there might be fundamental science problems combining those three technologies that simply can't be overcome. The OCMcar project board (OCMcarF) are asking me whether I should bet the farm on the ODbLEMU. I say we need to think it over carefully, and give it way more scrutiny than I would the GPLEMU. Can you see why? Cheers, Andy ___ 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] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
SteveC wrote: No I think there are some substantial issues, but they're inflated because of the PoV. I didn't have a chance to get to Science Commons while I was in Boston last week but I did talk to various people who are Smarter Than Me (tm) from the FSF and CC and none of them supported copyleft (actually share-alike) on data. A couple mentioned John specifically. I still do not entirely agree with them. But I am concerned that, even if defending the freedom to use geodata against the problems that Science Commons has chosen (for what they feel are good reasons) not to address (EU DB right, US database copyright, contract law) is the right thing to do, the ODbL may end up being ineffective. And that in jurisdictions those problems do not apply, addressing them by creating rights in order to give them away may end up being counter-productive. The Creative Commons licences import strong Moral Rights and Copyright to where they might not otherwise apply in law or in practice. The ODbL has the danger of doing the same for Database Right. And I am really, really worried about the contract element of the ODbL. All it will take is one database dump of OSM left on a DVD on a bus in a non-DB-right jurisdiction and that's it... - Rob. 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] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Ulf Möller wrote: Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on the ODbL on the co-ment website. Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their general stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a very useful response. I count 20 occurrences of the word science, scientists or similar; eight of education and educator; but not a single one of map or geo. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-comments-from-Creative-Commons-tp22638693p22657316.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39:01AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is better than a random assortment of may, might, the project consensus seems to be that..., i am not a lawyer but..., depending on your jurisdiction, and depending on the judge's interpreation. As I said, the terms do need to be more well defined, and defined the same for everyone rather than relying solely on definitions in different laws. It’s an unfortunate fact that the licence will have a different interpretation over the world whatever we do, but we can at least try to solve the issues that we see rather than just giving up. I would very much like to avoid a situation in which an uncertainty in the interpretation of the license makes user A refrain from doing something (because he thinks it might be against the license) whereas user B brazenly does the same thing and gains some kind of advantage by doing it, and then A starts complaining to us. Definitions of a Derived Database, Collective Database, Produced Work and others are things we can make more clear to avoid uncertainty. “Depending on jurisdiction” differences will be unavoidable. The best we can do is make it clear what is intended. It does come back to my comment about enforcing rights if they exist: If there are fewer or no copyright like rights in a jurisdiction, then everyone in that jurisdiction is playing on the same pitch, and I feel they have more freedom anyway. If there are rights, we enforce them to keep the data free in a jurisdicition that would allow another to keep data proprietary. 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] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons writes: While some complexities are introduced by differences in background legal doctrines, others are introduced by the ODbL scheme itself. These two points about the complexity of the ODbL are important ones that probably haven't been discussed as much as they should have been. As if the ODbL is not complex enough, when you add in the FIL and all the other considerations that apply to the practical implementation within the OSM context (eg click-through access for mirrored databases etc) then we have something that, in my opinion, is near to being unusable. Given that we have a goal of going from 100,000 contributors to 1 million complexity is something that will cost the community a lot. On my personal list of issues complexity is one that I consider to be a show stopper. 80n 2009/3/21 Jean-Christophe Haessig jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 19:02 +0100, Ulf Möller a écrit : Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on the ODbL on the co-ment website. A large part of this comment focuses on the complexity of the ODbL. While simplicity is better, I think we should be allowed a reasonable amount of complexity in the writing of the license, if our goal is to make a license that can be reused by others, and if it makes the license more efficient and suited to our needs. My point is that licenses like CC or GPL are not that simple either, but their extended use makes them well-known and in this case a moderate amount of complexity is not a problem. JC ___ 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
