Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Rob Myers wrote: >> I am Assuming Good faith. ;-) > > I don't think the emails I read on this list are lies. But that's a > lot different from thinking that they're correct. To wit, the phrase "OS OpenData _is_ compatible" is most likely a paraphrase, and is not nearly precise enough to convince me of anything, especially when it contradicts statements made by others. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 29 September 2010 15:33, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> It might greatly reduce the volume on this list if that legal advice > were > >> published in full. > > > > It would also help if members of the LWG were a little more forthcoming > in > > their communications. Here's what Grant was really trying to say: > > > > Thanks 80n, but those are your words and views. > Where are you quoting these numbered responses from? > Yesterday's License Working Group minutes. I guess you haven't read them yet. > >> OS StreetView Compatibility > >> > >> The state of play is as follows: > >> > >> 1) We understand that our legal counsel feels that our CT/OBbL terms ARE > >> compatible with OS license terms. However, we have not looked or > discussed > >> the reasons WHY, and need to understand that better. > >> > > Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did > supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT > the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need > further review. I cannot release their breakdown and reasoning without > their blessing, as you know the lawyer represents OSMF. > This has obviously not been communicated to the members of the LWG, so you are speaking for yourself here. > > >> 2) There has been discussed on legal-talk from an individual who has > been > >> in direct email correspondance with OS and indicates that they feel our > >> CT/ODbL terms are NOT compatible. We need to understand this better. > >> > > The question to and the response from OS is very woolly in my opinion. > The LWG has not yet had a chance to discussed this with OSMF's legal > council. OS's response emphases the required OpenData attribution > requirement, which is an opt-in offered by the Contributor Terms. > In your opinion. IANAL and neither are you. > > >> 3) Mike has been in discussion with an OSM sympathiser who suggests that > >> best approach is long-term political lobbying over the heads of the OS. > > > > Not sure where you are quoting this from. Seem sensible to me, it was > lobbying that got OS to release OpenData in the first place. > Who's the "OSM sympathiser"? What's with all the secrecy? > > > In other words there's some lawyer somewhere who *feels* that it's ok but > he > > hasn't gotten around to telling anyone why he thinks that's the case and > > there's at least one other interested party who holds a different view. > > That's a long way from "OS OpenData _is_ compatible". > > > > 80n you know the lawyer by name and the firm who he represents. What is that supposed to mean? > As detailed above I disagree with your summary. > > Lets quote what I actually said: "The legal advice is that OS OpenData > _is_ compatible." OSMF's legal council believes that OS OpenData is > compatible. Better? > No. Is your lawyer, with less than two years experience practicing Californian law, well qualified to give advice on the compatibility of two agreements that both fall under the laws of England and Wales? > > Regards > Grant > > ___ > 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] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29 September 2010 18:15, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Grant Slater > wrote: >> Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did >> supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT >> the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need >> further review. I cannot release their breakdown and reasoning without >> their blessing, as you know the lawyer represents OSMF. > > Having seen the argument as to why CC-BY-SA produced works are > compatible with CT/ODbL, I bet I can guess... The argument goes > something like 1) Geodata isn't protectable. 2) OS is geodata. 3) > Therefore OS is compatible with CT/ODbL. > Which argument would that be? I haven't seen it. OS OpenData License is not the CC-BY-SA. As stated in another thread OS OpenData is an attribution license and specifically allows sub-licensing. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29 September 2010 16:49, Grant Slater wrote: > > Thanks 80n, but those are your words and views. > Where are you quoting these numbered responses from? > I see, minutes from the LWG meeting last night. 2 of 7 LWG members in attendance. I wasn't on the call as I had an in person Technical Working Group meeting. My points still stand and I will follow up with full LWG. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Sep 29, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Dave F. wrote: > On 29/09/2010 16:13, SteveC wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Dave F. wrote: >> >>> On 29/09/2010 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: kevin wrote: > The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible > with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. >>> The campaign to get OS to release data started long before it happened, as >>> you well know. I don't know the precise date but would put a small wager >>> that it was before 01/08 >> You're way off, there was no campaign that I know of. > > >> I thought lobbying the government was a total waste of time, which is why I >> worked on OSM instead. The best you could say was that a few individuals >> blogged about how the world would be better with open government data. > > a) I wrote to my local MP about data availability in general & OS > specifically. I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone. Sure but I wouldn't call that a campaign. > b) There was (is) a national newspaper campaign to "Free our Data". Meh, it was a PR stunt on a low hanging fruit by an individual or two. It wasn't a lobbying organisation, didn't have a membership etc etc etc. > c) There was a post on these forums saying that OSM was taking partial credit > for being responsible in getting OS data released. Personally I think it deserves all the credit :-) for making happen by doing something and proving it can be done, rather than ranting on the sidelines. > > As I asked you before, will I be able to use this data under the proposed new > regulations? If you ask on the list and don't cc me I don't always see it because I just start deleting stuff randomly when I see the bizarro conspiracies. But to answer your question; AFAIK yes, but I defer to the LWG. > > Dave F. > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29 September 2010 15:33, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It might greatly reduce the volume on this list if that legal advice were >> published in full. > > It would also help if members of the LWG were a little more forthcoming in > their communications. Here's what Grant was really trying to say: > Thanks 80n, but those are your words and views. Where are you quoting these numbered responses from? >> OS StreetView Compatibility >> >> The state of play is as follows: >> >> 1) We understand that our legal counsel feels that our CT/OBbL terms ARE >> compatible with OS license terms. However, we have not looked or discussed >> the reasons WHY, and need to understand that better. >> Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need further review. I cannot release their breakdown and reasoning without their blessing, as you know the lawyer represents OSMF. >> 2) There has been discussed on legal-talk from an individual who has been >> in direct email correspondance with OS and indicates that they feel our >> CT/ODbL terms are NOT compatible. We need to understand this better. >> The question to and the response from OS is very woolly in my opinion. The LWG has not yet had a chance to discussed this with OSMF's legal council. OS's response emphases the required OpenData attribution requirement, which is an opt-in offered by the Contributor Terms. >> 3) Mike has been in discussion with an OSM sympathiser who suggests that >> best approach is long-term political lobbying over the heads of the OS. > Not sure where you are quoting this from. Seem sensible to me, it was lobbying that got OS to release OpenData in the first place. > In other words there's some lawyer somewhere who *feels* that it's ok but he > hasn't gotten around to telling anyone why he thinks that's the case and > there's at least one other interested party who holds a different view. > That's a long way from "OS OpenData _is_ compatible". > 80n you know the lawyer by name and the firm who he represents. As detailed above I disagree with your summary. Lets quote what I actually said: "The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible." OSMF's legal council believes that OS OpenData is compatible. Better? Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29/09/2010 16:13, SteveC wrote: On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Dave F. wrote: On 29/09/2010 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. The campaign to get OS to release data started long before it happened, as you well know. I don't know the precise date but would put a small wager that it was before 01/08 You're way off, there was no campaign that I know of. I thought lobbying the government was a total waste of time, which is why I worked on OSM instead. The best you could say was that a few individuals blogged about how the world would be better with open government data. a) I wrote to my local MP about data availability in general & OS specifically. I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone. b) There was (is) a national newspaper campaign to "Free our Data". c) There was a post on these forums saying that OSM was taking partial credit for being responsible in getting OS data released. As I asked you before, will I be able to use this data under the proposed new regulations? Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
- Original Message - From: "Grant Slater" To: ; "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license On 29 September 2010 13:15, wrote: But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final decision on choice needs to be made now. Practice has clearly changed since 2008. If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning when the OS data was released that it was incompatible? The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. It might greatly reduce the volume on this list if that legal advice were published in full. David But the Licensing Working Group (LWG) is making further clarification revisions on the Contributor Terms and these will need to be checked. Regards Grant Part of the Licensing Working Group. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29 September 2010 06:36, Rob Myers wrote: > Given that OSM is going to be relicencing, if the OS's licence isn't > CT-compatible then the options are for the OS to relicence their data or for > that data to be excluded from OSM's database. > > If the OS ODL isn't CT compatible, and if the OS won't relicence, this > doesn't prevent people from creating Produced Works under BY(-SA) that > include OS and OSM data. So you are stating unequivocally that the CTs won't be altered to accommodate things like OS, regardless of how many ask for this? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 28/09/2010 20:27, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Dave F. wrote: When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth your time No I have not & you know that. Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been unable to answer. The post which I replied to did not contain a single question, Your general question was whether OS data is interoperable with OdbL+CT (you asked whether somebody could "confirm" or "deny" that); in further posts you made it clear that you would find it "sad" and "hard to conceive" if it were not so. And how did you correlate that with it not being worth my time?! I cannot confirm or deny your original question; but I wanted to say that it is in no way "sad" or "hard to conceive" if the license that OSM chooses is not compatible with a handful of government data licenses around the world. We are certainly not going to let the OS dictate the license we choose for our data. It's amazing how you try & shift the guilt/blame. From where I'm standing it looks like the OSM Foundation is doing all the dictating. They went to the OS & demanded they release their data. When they did, OSMF almost immediately turn back to them & say "oh we don't want it now". That's what I'm finding hard to conceive. Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
2010/9/28 Dave F. : > On 28/09/2010 17:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> OK, lets not confuse issues here, one is to perform the import, the >> other is maintenance and updates of the data. > > The import can be split in two sections: > > a) direct import of data (ie shapefiles etc) > b) tracing background underlay images (ie OS Streetview) b is IMHO not an import. You are deriving information from a foto, i.e. you do the selection, you compare with your local knowledge and reality, you do the generalization -> You create the data. In an import you do none of this. You convert existing data and can at the best retain the original quality. > The latter is most definitely 'cared' for & 'maintained'. I certainly don't > want to loose the ability to do b) nor loose existing data I've added that > way. neither do I cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Kevin Cordina wrote: > As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview > data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering > nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so > it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. If you want a nameless map of streets and natural features, just go straight to the source and use OS VectorMap District. It's complete, consistent, reliable, well plotted, and has a sane licence. There's absolutely no point involving OSM. I'm speaking from some experience here. Every month for our magazine I produce a set of maps from OS OpenData (in this case Meridian2 rather than VMD, because we're working at roughly 1:70,000 and Meridian2 is better suited for that). I did once experiment with using OSM data. It was really painful. OSM's strength is in its rich data. Mindless tracing from OS StreetView, as others have said, destroys the motivation of others to make the data rich. I've seen this in Worcester, where an excellent quality map advancing at moderate speed has now largely drawn to a halt after some thoughtless OS tracing. No-one gains from this. OSM gets a worse map in the medium (not even long) term. Prospective users of the map data don't gain because they could have used OS anyway. I guess the one use-case is short-term use in OSM-derived products (such as Garmin .img files), but if one-tenth the effort spent on tracing had been spent on a utility to intelligently merge OSM with A.N.Other source without uploading it, that'd be much more sane. OS StreetView is a useful tool in moderation, for checking your own surveying and for filling in little gaps here and there. To get back to the original point, I support efforts to make the Contributor Terms compatible with this and other attribution-only licences. But some of the mindless tracing really makes me weep. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5580714.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Kevin Cordina wrote: > As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview > data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering > nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so > it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. If you want a nameless map of streets and natural features, just go straight to the source and use OS VectorMap District. It's complete, consistent, reliable, and has a sane licence. There's absolutely no point involving OSM. I'm speaking from some experience here. Every month for our magazine I produce a set of maps from OS OpenData (in this case Meridian2 rather than VMD, because we're working at roughly 1:70,000 and Meridian2 is better suited for that). I did once experiment with using OSM data. It was really painful. OSM's strength is in its rich data. Mindless tracing from OS StreetView, as others have said, destroys the motivation of others to make the data rich. I've seen this in Worcester, where an excellent quality map advancing at moderate speed has now largely drawn to a halt after some thoughtless OS tracing. No-one gains from this. OSM gets a worse map in the medium (not even long) term. Prospective users of the map data don't gain because they could have used OS anyway. I guess the one use-case is short-term use in OSM-derived products (such as Garmin .img files), but if one-tenth the effort spent on tracing had been spent on a utility to intelligently merge OSM with A.N.Other source without uploading it, that'd be much more sane. OS StreetView is a useful tool in moderation, for checking your own surveying and for filling in little gaps here and there. To get back to the original point, I support efforts to make the Contributor Terms compatible with this and other attribution-only licences. But some of the mindless tracing really makes me weep. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5580709.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29 September 2010 03:35, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote: > John Smith wrote: >> I really wish someone would have the backbone to fess up and say OSM >> will now go in this direction, or OSM is going in that direction, > > I find that the above quoted text states that it would be better if > someone takes a decision for us, so we don't lose time discussing. Did I > interpret your statement correctly? Pretty much, there is a distinct lack of direction presently, we keep getting told that it's not to limit future users, but without sufficiently strong direction the licensing debacle will just keep going on indefinitely. Even the time table outlined in the past isn't even being kept to. >> because frankly the indecisiveness is turning existing and potential >> contributors away. > > I'm just waiting for someone to announce a CC0 map so I can leave this > 'license madness'. Was never sure if copyleft was the right way to go > for data. I'm in the same boat, but I want copyleft, I'm not sure if the USGS is doing a public CC0 map or not... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29 September 2010 03:56, Chris Hill wrote: > So you think that only experienced OSmers add shops, churches, schools, > footpaths, cycletracks ... ? So you think the non-experienced OSMers that added 1 or 2 POIs actually care what they entered 6 or 12 months from now? or that they cared that the information they entered in the first place is actually accurate? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 29 September 2010 02:57, Rob Myers wrote: >> How is maintenance of imported data any different than maintenance of >> non-imported data? > > The feeling of ownership and investment and the number of people involved. That's based on the premise that the person that added the data is still actively involved, and for at least 50% of the contributors this statement won't be true. You're also assuming that people actively maintain existing data they added beyond their local area, which again may not be true. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Hi, Dave F. wrote: The import can be split in two sections: a) direct import of data (ie shapefiles etc) b) tracing background underlay images (ie OS Streetview) The latter is most definitely 'cared' for & 'maintained'. I certainly don't want to loose the ability to do b) nor loose existing data I've added that way. When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth your time, yet many OSMers have been happily active in the project even before there was any hope of OS releasing anything. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/24/2010 01:04 PM, 80n wrote: > >> >> I cannot grant you rights that I do not have. I do not have the right >> to "do any act restricted by copyright" so I can't give it to you even >> if I wanted to. >> > > Then it's unlikely that you can contribute BY-SA either, as BY-SA covers > the copyright restricted acts of copying, modification, derivation, > translation, and sublicencing. >From OS I have a "a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive" licence. But for the CTs I need a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, *irrevocable*" license. I don't have the right to grant an irrevocable license. For CC-BY-SA I have to grant a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license" which is revokable and term limited. The OS OpenData license permits me to do that. And what's more they explicitly state that the license is intended to be compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0. > > > I'm beginning to think that many people, including members of the LWG it >> seems, do not comprehend this point. There's certainly no guidance on >> this when the CTs are proffered. >> > > The CTs state: > > "You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder" > > Which seems fairly clear to me. It then goes on to say "If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder" which is the relevant clause. It's obviously not clear enough for some people. > > > There must be quite a number of people >> who have signed up to the CTs erroneously already. >> > > I doubt it. It's possible that some people simply haven't read them, but > it's much less likely that someone with the experience to have signed their > rights away lacks the experience to read the CTs. > I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that most people don't read them. Here's an amusing example of such: http://www.pcpitstop.com/spycheck/eula.asp 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
- Original Message - From: "Rob Myers" To: Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license On 09/17/2010 01:22 PM, David Groom wrote: But your missing the point. The since the CT's allow the possibility in the future that data might be published without attribution, then its impossible to contribute data (and still be acting in accordance with the CT's) which absolutely requires that attribution. Data contributed on the condition that it be attributed could not be used if that condition is not met. OSM would be breaking its side of the bargain, and so it would lose the right to use the data. If you want to propose a rewrite of the CT's which has wording which guarantees that any data which requires attribution will be removed, and It's implicit. Making this explicit would be a good thing, I agree, but Unfortuneatley its not implicit in anyting in the CT's, merely implied by your understanding of how OSMF may behave in the future. In effect you are saying not to worry about the legal requirements in the CT's, but rather to rely upon the idea that in the future OSMF will behave in a certain way. You're welcome to that view, but please dont con yourself and others into thinking it's legally valid view. I'm not sure the body of the CTs needs to be any more complex. Possibly it should be in the notes. find a way of making sure any data submitted which requires attribution is somehow marked in perpetuity so it can be identified, then I guess it might help with this issue. That's also definitely a good idea. I don't know the innards of the OSM database so I don't know how this would be handled but a tag for attribution or its absence would preserve this information. Only if (a) you could guarantee that the tag would be added; and (b) that the tag would never be removed or altered. Neither of which currently is the case. So your whole premise that its OK to add data which requires attribution on the basis the data will be removed if the attribution requirement is removed rests upon: a) the assumption that its OK to break the legal requirements of the CT's because of an implied assumption about how the OSMF will behave in the future b) the assumption that all data which requires attribution will be tagged as such (and there is no requirement at present for it to do so, just good practice) c) the assumption that the attribution tag cant be changed. That seems a lot of assumptios to me. David - Rob. ___ 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] OS Opendata & the new license
- Original Message - From: "Francis Davey" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license On 17 September 2010 13:22, David Groom wrote: But your missing the point. The since the CT's allow the possibility in the future that data might be published without attribution, then its impossible to contribute data (and still be acting in accordance with the CT's) which absolutely requires that attribution. To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms require (per clause 4) OSMF to attribute on request. There is no mechanism for that term to be changed, so regardless of what licence may be used, OSMF must still comply with clause 4 and hence attribute on request. True, but the is not point that CC-BY-SA data and, OS Opendata which is licensed under a CC-BY-SA "like" licence, the attribution needs not to be guaranteed to be on the wiki, but that requirement for attribution needs to be tied in with the data. CT's clause 3 allow the possibility that at some stage in the future some unspecified "free and open license" may be used, since we don't know what the attribution requirements (for use of the data) would be under that circumstance, then surely adding CC-BY-SA data is incompatible with the CT's. David It is correct that a contributor could not comply fully with the CT's and at the same time contribute data from the Ordinance Survey under the OS's existing licence. That is no different from data that is currently available under (say) CC-BY-SA or many other licences. I beleive (but don't know) that the LWG are working on new wording that deals with contributing not one's own data, but data drawn from (or still subject to licence under) one of the well known "open" licenses that are available. The reason a contributor could not do this is simply the breadth of rights given to OSMF under clause 2. Few open licenses will give a contributor *that* much and so the contributor cannot agree to anything so wide. That is (I believe) a reason for the review of the licence. This is a separate consideration from the compatibility of the ODbL with any particular open licence (such as the OS's). Compatibility (for contributors) with the CT's and compatibility with the ODbL are pretty much orthogonal questions. -- Francis Davey ___ 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] OS Opendata & the new license
On 09/16/2010 09:40 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 September 2010 06:36, Rob Myers wrote: If you mean the licence of OSM, that would clash with section 4 of the CTs. In that case, Section 3 clashes with 4, since there is no minimum requirement of attribution. 4 protects contributions made on the basis of an attribution agreement from relicencing to a non-attribution licence. This is a good thing. If you mean a produced work, that would clash with section 4.3 of the ODbL. So then OS data isn't compatible with ODBL? OS data is BY compatible. 4.3 of the ODbL is about attribution. I don't see the problem. The rights BY gives you may be enough to licence the work under the CTs. They may even be enough to allow you to licence the work under the DbCL. I'm more concerned about the non-endorsement and non-misrepresentation clauses of the OS licence. Those are in BY after 2.0, but aren't in the ODbL or DbCL. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/ (IANAL, TINLA.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Dave F. wrote: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#License > > Can someone confirm/deny that it's still interoperable with new license as > it's worded at the moment. > > Has anyone been in contact with OS to discuss this? I've been exchanging emails with OS about their license and OSM for some time. I had an email from OS today in which they state that they believe that ODbL is incompatible with their attribution requirements (because there is no requirement for produced works to carry attribution to them) and also incompatible with the proposed Contributor Terms v1.0 (in particular as attribution is not guaranteed in future licenses). OS also say that they are not going to consider any changes to the license themselves prior to the publication of a new licensing framework by the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI). See: http://perspectives.opsi.gov.uk/2010/06/development-of-the-uk-government-licensing-framework-.html My contact at OS thinks it likely that they will adopt the OPSI recommendations -- so we should probably be lobbying OPSI to include something that is explicitly ODbL-compatible as the recommended license for data-sets. Unfortunately, I don't know what sort of time table OPSI are working to. Their new scheme may come too late for OSM. As for the CTs, my personal view is that it's OSMF that needs to compromise here, and it would be unreasonable of us to expect large data providers to do so. > If it isn't will this mean previous traced/imported Opendata will have to be > removed? If the incompatibilities in the licenses / CTs are not resolved before the OSM license change goes ahead, then as far as I can see, the only option would be to remove all OS OpenData derived mapping from OSM. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
- Original Message - From: "Dave F." To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license On 16/09/2010 15:08, David Groom wrote: When you say "new licence" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the ODbL licence on its own , or the ODbL combined with the proposed CT's. I was under the impression they were joined at the hip & you can't have one without the other. Am I wrong? Well people are currently signing up under the CT's, yet OSM data is currently still CC-BY-SA, so they are not entirely "joined at the hip" According to the wiki [1] compatability of OS StreetView data with the Ct's is subject to a legal review which will take place soon. I assume that the licence / CT issues are the same for all OS Opendata. If you inlcude the CT's, then do you mean CT version1.0 which people are currently signing up to, or the working draft of a new version 1.1? Well, let's say both & do a contrast & compare. Is the new shiny 1.1 going to make a difference? Differences are outlined on the working draft, see link below. Let's also include people like me, who signed up a year ago (non CT) but have been exploiting the OS data since it was made available. Err... Do you have a link to CT1.1? Can't find it in wiki search. All links goto 1.0 https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_81272pvt54 David Cheers Dave F. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#Digital_Recified_Maps ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 16/09/2010 15:08, David Groom wrote: When you say "new licence" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the ODbL licence on its own , or the ODbL combined with the proposed CT's. I was under the impression they were joined at the hip & you can't have one without the other. Am I wrong? If you inlcude the CT's, then do you mean CT version1.0 which people are currently signing up to, or the working draft of a new version 1.1? Well, let's say both & do a contrast & compare. Is the new shiny 1.1 going to make a difference? Let's also include people like me, who signed up a year ago (non CT) but have been exploiting the OS data since it was made available. Err... Do you have a link to CT1.1? Can't find it in wiki search. All links goto 1.0 Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
- Original Message - From: "Dave F." To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:35 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Hi http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#License The above says it's interoperable with CC-by 3.0 license. Can someone confirm/deny that it's still interoperable with new license as it's worded at the moment. When you say "new licence" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the ODbL licence on its own , or the ODbL combined with the proposed CT's. If you inlcude the CT's, then do you mean CT version1.0 which people are currently signing up to, or the working draft of a new version 1.1? David If it isn't will this mean previous traced/imported Opendata will have to be removed? Has anyone been in contact with OS to discuss this? As I'm a simple lad, can I ask any replies to be a clear, concise & factual as possible please. Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
