[OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Peter Miller]

This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback on
the brief and the use cases.

 

The Brief - Does anyone strongly disagree with any aspects of the brief? Are
there any ways we could make it stronger and better? If so can we hear about
the issues in the next few days so we can try to accommodate them?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License#A_brief_for_the_pr
oposed_licence

 

Use Cases - I have added some new Use Cases, and reworded some of the
existing use cases to use a standard style throughout, normally starting
with the phrase 'The licence should allow'.. Or 'The licence should not
allow'. Does anyone strongly object to any of the Use Cases and there
interpretation. Can we know about that in the next few days?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License

 

I suggest that we next put together a project plan to bring the licence
elegantly into life and sort out what needs to be done, by when and by whom
to achieve that? I will add a proposed task-list to the wiki when I next
have a chance and we can then refine it and then pick up individual tasks.
There will be consensus building tasks (on Talk, talk-de and other local and
specialist talk lists); legal tasks (to codify the licence), there will be
technical tasks (seeing who needs to be contacted in each area, see what
data is at risk in any particular area, to allow people to accept the new
terms and see their data becoming 'safe'), and finally there will be
outreach tasks (to get buy in from individual contributors in each area, in
particular from major contributors who are not on talk to increase the
amount of safe data). Finally there will be a painful technical task to
remove 'non-safe' content.

 

None of the above will be easy, but it is getting harder the longer we
fiddle because the community is growing and more and more contributors will
be drifting out of contact.

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Peter Miller

  www.itoworld.com

 

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Tim Waters (chippy)]

On 10/14/08, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback on
> the brief and the use cases.

I think we should make it clear in each use case the full
requirements, the whole picture, including whether they  would also be
required to make available any changed osm data, derivative database
etc.

For example, I'm not sure but I think that  "Publishing a simple map
in a book, newsletter" would require a not-so-simple requirement to
make the data they used available, somehow...

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Frederik Ramm]

Andy,

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> You are already aware that the OSMF has an ongoing project in this respect
> and SteveC posted an update on progress only two days ago. Most of what you
> are suggesting above is already in our implementation plan.

Can I suggest that the Foundation publish their plan to avoid double and 
triple work. I had until now concluded from the relative lack of 
communications on the part of the Foundation that there isn't a real 
plan and was therefore quite happy for someone (Peter) to show some 
initiative. (Indeed I assumed that the Foundation would be happy as well 
- the Foundation didn't give the impression of embracing the topic at 
all so I figured they might be relieved to have Peter do it.) Apologies 
if I misjudged the Foundation's work - it wouldn't hurt if the 
Foundation not only worked hard but also talked about it ;-)

Does the Foundation's plan have any sort of dates put to it, or any 
timeframe at all, or is it more or less "it takes as long as it takes"?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Peter Miller wrote:
>Sent: 14 October 2008 10:28 AM
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments
>
>This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback on
>the brief and the use cases.
>

I'd just like to point out that this "final call for comments" is your
suggestion. Those dealing with the licence drafting process in the OSMF have
not set any final call on feedback or use cases, in fact we haven't yet
called for comment on either at the present time. While the use cases will
indeed be useful we don't consider that the process is closed and
contributors are welcome to add new use case questions to the wiki at any
time, as per any other wiki page. 

>I suggest that we next put together a project plan to bring the licence
>elegantly into life and sort out what needs to be done, by when and by whom
>to achieve that? I will add a proposed task-list to the wiki when I next
>have a chance and we can then refine it and then pick up individual tasks.
>There will be consensus building tasks (on Talk, talk-de and other local
>and specialist talk lists); legal tasks (to codify the licence), there will
>be technical tasks (seeing who needs to be contacted in each area, see what
>data is at risk in any particular area, to allow people to accept the new
>terms and see their data becoming 'safe'), and finally there will be
>outreach tasks (to get buy in from individual contributors in each area, in
>particular from major contributors who are not on talk to increase the
>amount of safe data). Finally there will be a painful technical task to
>remove 'non-safe' content.

You are already aware that the OSMF has an ongoing project in this respect
and SteveC posted an update on progress only two days ago. Most of what you
are suggesting above is already in our implementation plan. We very much
welcome the work that has been done by you and others over the last few
weeks so we will be happy to see a task list appearing but don't be
surprised if the final process is undertaken in a different format. Anything
put up on the wiki will be noted and incorporated into the master plan where
the need is seen, and of course we will continue to provide updates as and
when there is something concrete to report.

Cheers

Andy

Andy Robinson
Secretary
OpenStreetMap Foundation
0777 553 7872
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Name & Registered Office:
Openstreetmap Foundation
16 Oakfield Glade
Weybridge
Surrey
KT13 9DP
United Kingdom 
A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales.
Registration No. 05912761.


___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments

[MJ Ray]

"Peter Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Brief - Does anyone strongly disagree with any aspects of the brief?

I feel that the above question should never appear in a call for
comments: no one person can speak for everyone else.  It's very much
an "anyone feel like being shouted at?" question.

However, I'll stick my neck out: I don't agree with the list in point
1)2. which seems to permit non-machine-readable changesets, while not
permitting a CD in the box with a hardware device containing the
derived dataset.  Those two cases should be the other way around:
allow accompanying datasets outside the end-user experience; and forbid
non-machine-readable changesets if the original dataset is
machine-readable.

> Are there any ways we could make it stronger and better?

1) "should be also made available" is unclear and clunky - perhaps
"should be available" is sufficient?  Similarly all other "made
available"s.

2) What is "similar"?  Is this a backdoor?

3)b) "licence" should be "license" - even in English English, the verb
has a s.  Use of "protects" is ambiguous and inappropriate - "covers"?

5) Whose "fair-use" rules?  The USA's?  The pretty-minor UK ones?

> If so can we hear about
> the issues in the next few days so we can try to accommodate them?

See above.

I have not time to review the use cases at this point.  Sorry.
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk