Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 28/02/2009, at 3:38 PM, Jim Croft wrote: Putting words into their mouths, I think the argument would be that the decision-making involved in selection, storage, management and display of these fact is indeed a creative act, even though the facts themselves aren't. A blank screen magically comes alive - a map with dots, lines, symbols, colours and most importantly, communicated meaning. Sure smells like creativity to me... I wonder if the Renaissance cartographers, or any cartographers for that matter, would regard their work as not creative? A well rendered informative and accurate map is a beautiful thing. They don't just happen; someone must have created them. I definitely agree with that - as an interpretation of the underlying data, they are a creative work and so copyright-able. I'm not a lawyer (which is a good thing, because all this legal stuff makes my head hurt), but I think the main issue is whether the collection data that underlies the map is copyright-able. I've been reading up on it a bit recently (trying to understand the ODbL) but obviously don't have the deep knowledge a copyright lawyer will. Copying someone's beautifully drawn map of Sydney is obviously not allowed. However the location of the Sydney Opera House is a fact and so not copyrightable, and the location and name of Paramatta Road, and so on. While I can't copy the map as-is, can I create my own map getting the location and name of everything from the original map? Some countries (including Australia, I think) have something calls a database right which means that a collection of facts can be copyright-able even though individually they can't. The usual example where this is used (and I believe what the first Australian court case related to this is about) is phone books. The fact that person X lives at a certain address and has a certain phone number is an un- copyrightable fact, but are you allowed to produce a copy of the phone book? Back to OSM, what we have is pretty much just a collection of geospatial facts (locations, names, etc). In countries that don't have a database copyright, what stops someone from just copying the whole database? As I understand it, that is the kind of thing ODbL is meant to prevent, in addition to some other quirks of having a Creative Commons licence used for something that isn't really creative. I'm not certain whether any of that is actually correct, but it's what I've managed to gather from reading some discussions on it. James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote on 03/03/2009 12:46:58 PM: Copying someone's beautifully drawn map of Sydney is obviously not allowed. However the location of the Sydney Opera House is a fact and so not copyrightable, and the location and name of Paramatta Road, and so on. While I can't copy the map as-is, can I create my own map getting the location and name of everything from the original map? You probably can't do that. Australian courts, most famously in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd, have held that collections of facts have originality copyright can subsist in them. There is little doubt it my mind, that if you took a street directory, transcribed all the facts and locations, and constructed another street directory that you would be in breach of copyright, even in the new map had a different creative design. Some countries (including Australia, I think) have something calls a database right which means that a collection of facts can be copyright-able even though individually they can't. The usual example where this is used (and I believe what the first Australian court case related to this is about) is phone books. The fact that person X lives at a certain address and has a certain phone number is an un- copyrightable fact, but are you allowed to produce a copy of the phone book? Australia does not have database right, and the phone book case (above) was concerned with copyright, and not database right. Database right does exist in the UK, where the database is hosted though. Determining jurisdiction would be interesting, but I would suggest that both UK courts and Australian courts would claim some link. Back to OSM, what we have is pretty much just a collection of geospatial facts (locations, names, etc). In countries that don't have a database copyright, what stops someone from just copying the whole database? US courts have held that the phone book is just a collection of facts, and cannot be copyrighted. Where there is no copyright law, or database right law, the ODbL depends on contract law. There are a number of issues with that, not least of which is the issue of privity, and whether you could ever sue the end user of the data, but I'll leave others to discuss the issues. Ultimately, you can try copyright, database right, and contract, but in some jurisdictions is might have to be accepted that you can't really effectively protect a database of facts such as OSM, and still allow the freedoms that are desirable. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
What's the purpose of S5.0 (disclaimer of moral rights), especially since the plain meaning of that section appears to differ from the 'attribution' element of the current license (not that I think attribution is a great idea with so many contributors, but some bulk-data donors include attribution in their license to us) More importantly, is S5.0 still meaningful if it doesn't apply to everyone? e.g. imagine its purpose is to reduce attribution requirements to this is OSM data' rather than requiring 2 million names and pseudonyms on the back of each map (this being a guess as to its purpose, hence 1st question). Is it even worth bothering if we still have to list the names of anyone who contributed from an area where they don't waive their moral rights? suppose the I accept this new licence tickbox is implemented and I tick it while on holiday in Algeria. Will I then get the opportunity to demand that all OSM-derived products list me as the author, and object to anything which portrays the map in a manner I'm not happy with? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
I started reading the ODbL licence but in the preamble it stated that this licence only covers the database itself and not the contents of the database. I stopped reading at this point since I am only interested in the contents of the database and have minimal interest is the database itself. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap's expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure that the license is the best possible license for us. The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered. The license is now available at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and you are welcome to make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list also at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ up until 20th March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and comments should be made there as part of that process. Attached below is our proposed adoption plan and the latest will be at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan . This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on the discussion page for the plan: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan . In summary, we'd like to give time for final license comments to be absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the current version of the new license to the community for adoption and then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait until the final version before formally reviewing the license. Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed Use Cases http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases and his responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation covered by the ODbL. There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on. If you would like to help, please give input at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues For instance: Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license? The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives? And implementation What Ifs ... for example, what if the license is not accepted? Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the process. -- All dates approximate for review. License Plan 27th February: * This draft adoption plan made public to legal and talk list with the draft license text made available by the Open Data Commons (with facility for comments back) . Local contacts asked to assist in passing on the message, and subsequent announcements. 2nd March: * Working group meeting. Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments; What If scenario planning. 12th March: * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to date. 20th March: *End of ODbL comment period. 28 March: *ODbL 1.0 is expected to be released by Open Data Commons at The Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) London event. 31st March: * OSMF Board endorses licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd January) to vote (1 week) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the community for adoption. What follows is based on a positive response from the OSMF members... + 1 week: * Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and are emailed a notice. * Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL. + 2 weeks? * Require people to respond to the licensing question. How? Should we deny API access otherwise? +1 month: *
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, andrzej zaborowski escribió: What I don't understand very clearly (and would appreciate a clarification) is the license says that ODbL applies to the database and not to the data in it, and that data in one databse can be covered by multiple licenses. What license would our data be under? Would it be under no license because it's factual data that cannot be copyrighted? AFAIK, it'll be under the factual data information license. It's basically a PD dedication license, asserting that facts can not be copyrighted. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es El odio es un lastre. La vida es demasiado corta como para estar siempre cabreado. -- Danny (American History X, 1998) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Grant Slater wrote: The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap's expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure that the license is the best possible license for us. The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered. The license is now available at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and you are welcome to make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list also at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ up until 20th March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and comments should be made there as part of that process. Attached below is our proposed adoption plan and the latest will be at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan . This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on the discussion page for the plan: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Pl an . In summary, we'd like to give time for final license comments to be absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the current version of the new license to the community for adoption and then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait until the final version before formally reviewing the license. Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed Use Cases http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases and his responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation covered by the ODbL. There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on. If you would like to help, please give input at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues For instance: Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license? The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives? And implementation What Ifs ... for example, what if the license is not accepted? Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the process. -- All dates approximate for review. License Plan 27th February: * This draft adoption plan made public to legal and talk list with the draft license text made available by the Open Data Commons (with facility for comments back) . Local contacts asked to assist in passing on the message, and subsequent announcements. 2nd March: * Working group meeting. Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments; What If scenario planning. 12th March: * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to date. 20th March: *End of ODbL comment period. 28 March: *ODbL 1.0 is expected to be released by Open Data Commons at The Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) London event. 31st March: * OSMF Board endorses licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd January) to vote (1 week) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the community for adoption. What follows is based on a positive response from the OSMF members... + 1 week: * Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and are emailed a notice. * Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL. + 2 weeks? * Require people to respond to the licensing
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote: The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). Thank you for your work to date; clearly a lot of work has gone into this. We will now pass this information to our own legal people for review. We will publish their response to the community as soon as it is available. If we have any interim questions we will post those to the list as well. I have a question about how we manage the Use Cases wiki page during the consultation phase... The legal people have responded to one set of Use Cases (excellent news indeed), however the wiki can be changed at any time so the legal view will become out-of-date as the Use Case text is updated. Can I suggest that a separate .pdf document is published which contains the Use Case version that was actually consulted on and the response from the legal people to that version? I suggest that we then revert the Use Case wiki page to the version prior to the legal comment being added and that we then update the text for the Use Cases in response to this feedback we have received. We should then possibly seek a further review of any Use Cases where the text has been altered (the WIki 'diff' feature will allow us to identify which Use Cases have updated between the date that the legal people took their initial version and the current version). I also suggest that we delete the ' A brief for the proposed SA licence ' section of the Use Case page as that is now historical, it may not actually reflect the license and is a distraction (note that I was the main author of it, so no one should be offended by doing that!). Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the wiki history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that review has been made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then no edits for a month). I've grabbed a copy of that page and will insert the review comments into that as suggested. Give me till Sat. Mike At 12:52 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote: On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote: The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). Thank you for your work to date; clearly a lot of work has gone into this. We will now pass this information to our own legal people for review. We will publish their response to the community as soon as it is available. If we have any interim questions we will post those to the list as well. I have a question about how we manage the Use Cases wiki page during the consultation phase... The legal people have responded to one set of Use Cases (excellent news indeed), however the wiki can be changed at any time so the legal view will become out-of-date as the Use Case text is updated. Can I suggest that a separate .pdf document is published which contains the Use Case version that was actually consulted on and the response from the legal people to that version? I suggest that we then revert the Use Case wiki page to the version prior to the legal comment being added and that we then update the text for the Use Cases in response to this feedback we have received. We should then possibly seek a further review of any Use Cases where the text has been altered (the WIki 'diff' feature will allow us to identify which Use Cases have updated between the date that the legal people took their initial version and the current version). I also suggest that we delete the ' A brief for the proposed SA licence ' section of the Use Case page as that is now historical, it may not actually reflect the license and is a distraction (note that I was the main author of it, so no one should be offended by doing that!). Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). I am sure that this is going to be fun. Legal adviser makes a fine new start for a never ending PD-Share alike or GPL style/LGPL style debate with comments like this on the wiki use cases page: My goal as a producer of Free (as in freedom) works is to enable (and encourage) others to create new and innovative Free works based on mine, so that the catalogue of Free works available to the world is growingly enriched by new contributors. This wealth of new works is my reward for contributing in the first place. I don't understand why anybody would be allowed to pick random pieces of Free works, produce something new with it, and not share it back. If they have a problem with sharing back to the community, they should just not use a Free work in the first place, get their data elsewhere and possibly pay for it. --Pshunter 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did the upload of their data just have to tick I agree on their behalf when they next log-in after the change? 2: For imported datasets where we checked compatibility with our old license before import, will they be reviewed for compatibility with the new license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:05, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). I am sure that this is going to be fun. Legal adviser makes a fine new start for a never ending PD-Share alike or GPL style/LGPL style debate with comments like this on the wiki use cases page: My goal as a producer of Free (as in freedom) works is to enable (and encourage) others to create new and innovative Free works based on mine, so that the catalogue of Free works available to the world is growingly enriched by new contributors. This wealth of new works is my reward for contributing in the first place. I don't understand why anybody would be allowed to pick random pieces of Free works, produce something new with it, and not share it back. If they have a problem with sharing back to the community, they should just not use a Free work in the first place, get their data elsewhere and possibly pay for it. --Pshunter 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I think we are going to need some carefully management of the Use Case page over the review period. Should we use the talk page to discuss issues with individual use cases? or should the main use-case page be used? or should this list be used?! Personally I would prefer the Use Case talk page to have a heading for each Use Case and have the main Use Case page only containing the current proposed text. If people don't object this this then I will create entries for each Use Case on the discussion page and move the existing comments from the front to the discussion page. My reason for using the wiki approach is that the discussions for each Use Case can happen in parallel without elements of the discussion getting lost over time the way they do on a list, or dissipate into the normal free/sa pit of despair! With reference to Pshunter's comments I am not clear what his actual point it, but I will pick that up on the talk page if people agree with the approach. Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:40, OJ W wrote: 1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did the upload of their data just have to tick I agree on their behalf when they next log-in after the change? 2: For imported datasets where we checked compatibility with our old license before import, will they be reviewed for compatibility with the new license? I am not in a position to answer these questions but I have added them to the Open Issues page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues ). Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Given that the purpose of this license is to allow use, copying, modifying, and redistribution, why is it phrased as only allowing you to Use the database, and then redefining Use in a different section to mean copying, modifying, and redistribution? Shouldn't the first paragraph of S3.1 be readable by itself without having to go search for definitions in order to extract the plain-language meaning of the text? (I'm ignoring here the presence of 'examples' in S3.1, since examples are usually used for illustration not definition) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Add this question/point to the wiki! - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible share-alike licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works derived from more than one already existing free work. While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or BSD-like license, I would have at least hoped for some explicit conversion clauses, e.g. allowing to use the data under CC-SA, GFDL or GPL. Philipp ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible share-alike licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works derived from more than one already existing free work. While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or BSD-like license, I would have at least hoped for some explicit conversion clauses, e.g. allowing to use the data under CC-SA, GFDL or GPL. None of those licences handle data, though, they handle copyright. That is the motivation for an open *database* licence. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: What license would our data be under? Would it be under no license because it's factual data that cannot be copyrighted? Grant wrote: OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation covered by the ODbL. andrzej again: In this case couldn't we just keep claiming that the data is under CC-BY-SA and remain compatible with other projects (even if this doesn't make a difference legally in most countries, because it's factual data) Claiming to have a copyright where you know you have none is considered very bad style, something that evil companies do, or Scientology. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Important news from legal-talk -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap's expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure that the license is the best possible license for us. The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered. The license is now available at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and you are welcome to make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list also at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ up until 20th March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and comments should be made there as part of that process. Attached below is our proposed adoption plan and the latest will be at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan . This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on the discussion page for the plan: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan . In summary, we'd like to give time for final license comments to be absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the current version of the new license to the community for adoption and then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait until the final version before formally reviewing the license. Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed Use Cases http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases and his responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation covered by the ODbL. There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on. If you would like to help, please give input at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues For instance: Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license? The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives? And implementation What Ifs ... for example, what if the license is not accepted? Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the process. -- All dates approximate for review. License Plan 27th February: * This draft adoption plan made public to legal and talk list with the draft license text made available by the Open Data Commons (with facility for comments back) . Local contacts asked to assist in passing on the message, and subsequent announcements. 2nd March: * Working group meeting. Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments; What If scenario planning. 12th March: * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to date. 20th March: *End of ODbL comment period. 28 March: *ODbL 1.0 is expected to be released by Open Data Commons at The Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) London event. 31st March: * OSMF Board endorses licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd January) to vote (1 week) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the community for adoption. What follows is based on a positive response from the OSMF members... + 1 week: * Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and are emailed a notice. * Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 28/02/2009, at 12:17 PM, Jim Croft wrote: Out of curiosity, would one of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) licenses be able to provide thefunctionality and the flexibility we might need? Basically, no - what is why the Open Database Licence is being worked on. Essentially the problem is that while Creative Commons is fine for creative works, OSM pretty much a collection of facts rather than a creative work. I haven't looked into all the details, but I believe that ODbL tries to use database copyright when such a concept exists in a particular countries legal system and other mechanisms when it doesn't. Cheers, James Livingston ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
interesting... In another life (the one that pays the bills) I work with a team, several in fact, that collects and manages biodiversity 'facts' (hundreds of millions of them: this species of plant or animal was found here, then, etc. - hence the lurking fascination with OSM). This large national and international community of professional 'fact collectors' (see for example, www.gbif.org) wants to make their facts and the visualization of these facts freely available and they are leaning towards the Creative Commons and the related Science Commons licenses. Putting words into their mouths, I think the argument would be that the decision-making involved in selection, storage, management and display of these fact is indeed a creative act, even though the facts themselves aren't. A blank screen magically comes alive - a map with dots, lines, symbols, colours and most importantly, communicated meaning. Sure smells like creativity to me... I wonder if the Renaissance cartographers, or any cartographers for that matter, would regard their work as not creative? A well rendered informative and accurate map is a beautiful thing. They don't just happen; someone must have created them. It is the feel-good creativity of OSMers seeking, finding and documenting facts and putting them in maps for public good that has made it pretty difficult to leave this forum... :) I will continue to keep an eye on the open database model - in some circumstances it might be just the right tool for the job. jim On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: On 28/02/2009, at 12:17 PM, Jim Croft wrote: Out of curiosity, would one of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) licenses be able to provide thefunctionality and the flexibility we might need? Basically, no - what is why the Open Database Licence is being worked on. Essentially the problem is that while Creative Commons is fine for creative works, OSM pretty much a collection of facts rather than a creative work. I haven't looked into all the details, but I believe that ODbL tries to use database copyright when such a concept exists in a particular countries legal system and other mechanisms when it doesn't. Cheers, James Livingston ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- _ Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 Words, as is well known, are the great foes of reality. - Joseph Conrad, author (1857-1924) I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - attributed to Robert McCloskey, US State Department spokesman ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
