Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread John Smith
On 10 August 2010 23:39, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
 I suggest you fit into the wait and see category above.

That's unfortunate, because then we can't model how many support ODBL,
but don't support the CTs...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Brian Quinion
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain license 
 supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you 
 to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms is expressly written to 
 allow us to come back in future years and see what is best  without all this 
 fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go 
 away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

One question:

Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used
data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the
situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the
Contributor Terms?

In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they
are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting
copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may
not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to
resolve the future copyright disputes.

--
 Brian

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Richard Weait
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Brian Quinion
openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain 
 license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do 
 urge you to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms is expressly 
 written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best  
 without all this fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all 
 this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

 One question:

 Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used
 data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the
 situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the
 Contributor Terms?

 In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they
 are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting
 copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may
 not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to
 resolve the future copyright disputes.

If you have derived data from a source that allows deriving to OSM
then I'd say you are fine.  This would cover tracing from aerial
imagery.  If we were dealing with the world of copyright and creative
works this would be similar to taking a photograph of a bonsai plant
after being granted permission to take the photograph.

If you've imported data from a source that allows importation to OSM,
again I'd say that you are okay.

If you've imported data from a source based only on license
compatibility in the last three years you'd have to have been
uninformed or thoughtless to do it without giving the license upgrade
some consideration as stated in the import guidelines since January
2008.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

It would probably be pretty embarrassing for anybody who made that
sort of error in judgment or declaration of ignorance, so they might
be a little prickly about the subject or try to make it seem like
someone else's fault rather than admitting their error.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


[OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Mike Collinson
What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. So, in summary, we'll 
proceed with a voluntary program of sign-up for the new OpenStreetMap 
Contributor Terms [1].  Those that simply want to get on and accept that we 
won't doing anything daft can sign up.Those that are worried about data 
loss and that the OSMF will make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  
There'll be no Decline button. There'll be no switching over to the new license 
during this phase.  We'll show how much of the database is potentially covered 
by the ODbL. We've got some help on modelling that, and we'll aim for at least 
a weekly update if not daily. We'll also make all the data available needed to 
calculate that, so if you want to try a different metric or just see what is 
happening in your local area, everything will be transparent.

If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain license 
supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you to 
give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms is expressly written to allow 
us to come back in future years and see what is best  without all this fuss 
about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away and 
get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

Some supporting notes:

() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have 
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so that 
my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't want us as 
a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide.  I pledge to continue 
working with *both* objectives in mind.

() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license if 
data loss is unreasonable. We will issue a formal statement to that effect and 
attempt to define better what unreasonable means. A totally quantitative 
criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what 
specific problems may arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted 
to do something wild.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar 
statement.

() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular basis 
how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not.  We will make 
all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse using their 
own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the dev mailing 
list. You will need:

- An ordinary planet dump.
- Access to history data. A public 18GB history dump is available 
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.  
The intent is to make this available available on a regular basis with difffs. 
A full re-generation takes several days.
- A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work in 
progress. 

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us see 
first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific problems might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group 

[1] The new Contributor Terms:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary  - Summary

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and 
links to translations


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread John Smith
On 10 August 2010 23:04, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.

I support BY-SA (and probably ODBL) but I don't support the
contributor terms, can I agree to the ODBL without agreeing to the new
CTs?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Dave Stubbs
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 23:04, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.

 I support BY-SA (and probably ODBL) but I don't support the
 contributor terms, can I agree to the ODBL without agreeing to the new
 CTs?


From reading that e-mail the answer is no, at at this time.

I suggest you fit into the wait and see category above.

Thanks,

Dave

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread John Smith
On 10 August 2010 23:51, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 Thanks for the support on the ODbL but as Dave says, no, the acceptance is 
 for the Contributor Terms.

As I've said before, I can't legally agree to the CTs due to clause 1
at the very least, I don't have the right to relicense all my
contributions...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread John Smith
On 11 August 2010 01:55, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 It would probably be pretty embarrassing for anybody who made that
 sort of error in judgment or declaration of ignorance, so they might
 be a little prickly about the subject or try to make it seem like
 someone else's fault rather than admitting their error.

Even if you have data compatible with the ODBL/CC-by-SA, it doesn't
mean the CTs are compatible... Who's fault is it exactly if we did
check if the license was ok but wasn't made sufficiently aware of new
CTs?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Brian Quinion
 Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used
 data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the
 situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the
 Contributor Terms?

 In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they
 are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting
 copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may
 not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to
 resolve the future copyright disputes.

 If you have derived data from a source that allows deriving to OSM
 then I'd say you are fine.  This would cover tracing from aerial
 imagery.  If we were dealing with the world of copyright and creative
 works this would be similar to taking a photograph of a bonsai plant
 after being granted permission to take the photograph.

 If you've imported data from a source that allows importation to OSM,
 again I'd say that you are okay.

 If you've imported data from a source based only on license
 compatibility in the last three years you'd have to have been
 uninformed or thoughtless to do it without giving the license upgrade
 some consideration as stated in the import guidelines since January
 2008.

My point was that people can easily get themselves into a situation
where they are legally liable by clicking the accept link and there is
insufficient warning.

IMO it should say in big letters 'If you have imported data for which
you are NOT the copyright owner you CAN NOT accept the Contributor
Terms' otherwise we are encouraging, even recommending that people
breach copyright.

There also needs to be a process for people who have signed the
contributor terms in error to un-sign or some way for them to be
assisted in removing their 'tainted' data so they are no longer in
breach.

--
 Brian

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread John Smith
On 11 August 2010 02:13, Brian Quinion
openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote:
 There also needs to be a process for people who have signed the
 contributor terms in error to un-sign or some way for them to be
 assisted in removing their 'tainted' data so they are no longer in
 breach.

This already came up on the talk-au list, a new contributor was asking
if they should have some/all of their contributions reverted because
they didn't realise tracing from Nearmap would cause them to be in
breach of contract...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Mike Collinson
At 05:16 PM 10/08/2010, Brian Quinion wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain 
 license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do 
 urge you to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms is expressly 
 written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best  
 without all this fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all 
 this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

One question:

Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used
data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the
situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the
Contributor Terms?

In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they
are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting
copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may
not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to
resolve the future copyright disputes.

I believe we are well covered here with the current activities of the Data 
Working Group and our completed registration under the US Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act [1] . As I think you imply, it is best to at least start by 
assuming that the Contributor has acted in good faith and simply work with them 
to sort things out.  Our understanding from legal counsel is that if there is 
indeed a copyright infringement, we need to 1) have a mechanism in place 
whereby the copyright owner can contact us (done), have a process to remove 
data if so required (done), and be seen to do what we say (done - a Lithuanian 
case acts a reference).


Mike


[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft#Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
  


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk