Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Hi, > > BadMapCo creates a Collective Work based on their own mapping data > > (roads in most places and footpath/cycle path data in places) and > > augment this with additional footpath/cycle path from OSM (taken > > as a Derivative Database with a geocoded boundary) and then > > published the resulting DB as C BadMapCo as a Collective Database > > with acknowledgement for OSM. > If BadMapCo uses *only* footpaths from OSM, then the resulting DB can *not* > be > a collective one. [...] > For a DB to be part of a collective DB, it must be *unmodified*. > Converting the data to another format (e.g. MySQL to PGSQL) is a > modification. Even extracting a polygon is a modification. Extracting a polygon is a modification but can you not separate the steps: 1. Original OSM data 2. extract polygon, get a derived database, which you have to make available 3. use the derived database, in unmodified form, and combine it with your own data to make a collective database Your own data would never take part in the formation of a derived database in this case. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:04:58AM +, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > > The idea that > someone in around 100 years time will still have to struggle with the > license issues we are setting up now on my data really worries me With your own data, you can make it PD (or the equivalent - http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ perhaps!) any time you choose of course. -- http://www.gowerpower.org.uk/henry/ <-- new baby! ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
El Jueves, 7 de Febrero de 2008, Peter Miller escribió: > [...] see if we think they would be allowed, or not allowed, based on the > proposed licence and also if we would want them to be allowed or not. OK, here goes my personal view on these cases. Disclaimers: IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt. Everything is IMHO. "ODL-DB" means "Open Database License"; "ODL-factual" means "Open Data Factual Info License". > Someone takes OSM data and creates a map of an area of the country and > surrounds it with photos and diagrams and wants the collection to be C to > them. I would hope that this was allowed but that the person was expected > to put a licence phrase relating to the OSM content on the resulting map. He couldn't copyright the entire collection: the data from which the data comes from will still be covered by ODL-factual. The viral clause(s) from ODL-factual would stop that person from getting a copyright on the street names, etc. ODL-DB would not apply in this case. > Someone take OSM data, makes some additions to the street data and then > publishes it as above with additional photos and diagrams. I would hope > that this was allowed, that a message on the paper map was required and > that the updated 'Derived Database' of OSM data was made available in a > suitable and usable form for inclusion in OSM in the future. No. ODL-DB would only be enforceable if that person *redistributes* the "derived database". If he doesn't, he doesn't have to abide by ODL-DB. > Someone creates a video animation from OSM data to be broadcast as part of > a news package on the BBC. I would hope that it would be ok, but that a > acknowledgement for OSM was included in the credits or visibly as part of > the animation or by other means, possibly on their web site if there was > genuinely no reasonably way to include it in the broadcast. Exceptions for critical analysis apply here. AFAIK, most EU countries have a couple of rights to allow citations and such, similar to the US concept of "fair use". If, by any change, an OSM image would get some screen time in BBC news, BBC does *not* have to abide to our licenses, as long as they only use the OSM image(s) for commenting on the project, etc. The same goes for scientific research. If you're writing a paper on geographical database indexing (or whatever), you can get a portion of OSM data and do *whatever* you want with it. AFAIK, no license can stop this from happening. The CC licenses even have a clause making this fact explicit: "2. Fair Dealing Rights. Nothing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other applicable laws." > BadMapCo creates a Collective Work based on their own mapping data (roads > in most places and footpath/cycle path data in places) and augment this > with additional footpath/cycle path from OSM (taken as a Derivative > Database with a geocoded boundary) and then published the resulting DB as C > BadMapCo as a Collective Database with acknowledgement for OSM. If BadMapCo uses *only* footpaths from OSM, then the resulting DB can *not* be a collective one. Even if the only thing that BadMapCo does is re-arranging the DB (for example, distributong a portion of the planet, or converting "planet.osm" to a diferent format), then anything resulting is a *derivative* DB, and any OSMer would be in an advantage when suing BadMapCo. For a DB to be part of a collective DB, it must be *unmodified*. Converting the data to another format (e.g. MySQL to PGSQL) is a modification. Even extracting a polygon is a modification. > LicenceBreaker creates a Collective Database with OSM data and some other > random Public Domain geocoded photos and publishes it as a Collective Work > as PD (which I think the licence currently allows). No. My interpretation of ODL-DB, clause 4.5, is that the resulting DB must include a notice about the OSM data being covered under ODL-DB. This would prevent the whole collective work from being pure PD. > BadInternetCompany takes OSM data, uses it to create mapping and offers it > to the public and then encourages their users to correct and improve it, > but claim that, since it is only for 'internal' use, they therefore don't > have to offer any content back to OSM. "Public" and "Internal use" are not sinonyms. ;-) If this happens, then some OSMers would sue BadInternetCompany. Is it neccesary to make this point of "publishing to the Internet" more explicit in the ODL-DB draft? Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Now listening to: Angelo Badalamenti - Secretary (2002) - [11] Secretary's Secrets (2:44) (0.00%) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list
[OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
As a sanity check can I propose a few uses of OSM data and see if we think they would be allowed, or not allowed, based on the proposed licence and also if we would want them to be allowed or not. Can I suggest that we build up a library of such scenarios and for each one discuss any legal difficulties? Someone takes OSM data and creates a map of an area of the country and surrounds it with photos and diagrams and wants the collection to be C to them. I would hope that this was allowed but that the person was expected to put a licence phrase relating to the OSM content on the resulting map. Someone take OSM data, makes some additions to the street data and then publishes it as above with additional photos and diagrams. I would hope that this was allowed, that a message on the paper map was required and that the updated 'Derived Database' of OSM data was made available in a suitable and usable form for inclusion in OSM in the future. Someone creates a video animation from OSM data to be broadcast as part of a news package on the BBC. I would hope that it would be ok, but that a acknowledgement for OSM was included in the credits or visibly as part of the animation or by other means, possibly on their web site if there was genuinely no reasonably way to include it in the broadcast. BadMapCo creates a Collective Work based on their own mapping data (roads in most places and footpath/cycle path data in places) and augment this with additional footpath/cycle path from OSM (taken as a Derivative Database with a geocoded boundary) and then published the resulting DB as C BadMapCo as a Collective Database with acknowledgement for OSM. Over time they reduce the area taken from OSM until it isn't necessary any more, but by shrinking the area which they use from OSM as they complete their own surveying they never add any content to the Derived Database to offer back to us. LicenceBreaker creates a Collective Database with OSM data and some other random Public Domain geocoded photos and publishes it as a Collective Work as PD (which I think the licence currently allows). Someone else takes the PD Collective Work and removes the irrelevant photos and publishes the original OSM data as PD. BadInternetCompany takes OSM data, uses it to create mapping and offers it to the public and then encourages their users to correct and improve it, but claim that, since it is only for 'internal' use, they therefore don't have to offer any content back to OSM. Regards, Peter Miller ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > Ps. does that mean that if someone has a 1993 or earlier postcode DB > lying around, we can bulk load it into Free the Postcode? Yes, it should be free. Or at least one from 1992 would have become free at the end of December 31, 2007. Just like Project Gutenberg, Wikisource and similar book digitization projects make a point of moving as close as possible to the 70 year limit, by scanning books by authors who died in 1937*, free data projects should republish any 15 year old databases where the database rights have expired. However, you should make sure how the "database rights" were defined in 1993 in your country and how the current law applies to them. In many European countries, database rights were introduced by a European Council Directive 96/9/EC of March 1996, still only twelve years ago. Wikipedia says**: "In the United Kingdom, it was introduced as "The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997" and came into force on January 1, 1998." But how does that apply to databases from 1993? Ask a U.K. jurist. In Scandinavia, catalog rights (for printed catalogs) were introduced in the copyright law of 1960 (Sweden) or 1961 (Denmark, Norway), having a 10 year protection, which was later expanded to 15 years and served as inspiration for the European database rights. * e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scan_parties ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right -- Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Robert Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ps. does that mean that if someone has a 1993 or earlier postcode DB > lying around, we can bulk load it into Free the Postcode? Probably not, as I expect that Royal Mail make you sign a contract with them before they give it to you, and that contract will almost certainly restrict your rights beyond the default restrictions that they get from database right. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
El Martes, 5 de Febrero de 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro escribió: > Ps. does that mean that if someone has a 1993 or earlier postcode DB > lying around, we can bulk load it into Free the Postcode? It depends. It depends on your view over the "copyrightability" of individual pieces of data. If a singular piece of data is "copyrightable", then the 15-yeard-old database right expires, but the individual copyrights do not. If a singular piece of data is not "copyrightable", then the data is basically in the public domain. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Errar es humano, pero para liar las cosas realmente bien necesitas un ordenador. -- dicho popular del mundo informático, atribuido a Paul Ehrlich (Premio Nóbel de Física) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lars Aronsson wrote: | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: | |> I think that we should reduce the time before the data becomes |> public domain from year of editors death (which will be very |> hard for someone in 100 years time to find out) + 70 years to |> year of entry into the DB + about 10 years. | | Only traditional copyright expires after life+70 years. This is | applicable to software source code and might be applicable to | artwork, such as mapnik renderings. | | But database rights only last 15 years after the year of | publication. All the discussion of which license to use for OSM | data, is only a matter for the first 15 years. Any planet.osm from | 2006 will enter the public domain at the end of 2021. 15 years is good. I think we should make it clear that we believe in the 15 years number, and if the term is extended in the future, or someone is from a different jurisdiction, we won't assert more than 15 years. Robert (Jamie) Munro Ps. does that mean that if someone has a 1993 or earlier postcode DB lying around, we can bulk load it into Free the Postcode? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHqHEAz+aYVHdncI0RAkCmAJ9CGgIfRIPD8T8CH5+iBT7hkDT8dwCgypAf IIeyvurmcBasBkMaNEL47k8= =eRYz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This is Parallel Distribution. We (the cc-licences mailing list) >discussed it during the CC 3.0 public review. My personal opinion is >that it is not a good idea because there is so much room for >mischief in it. Personally I feel this is a good step forward from the current licence; it allows the OSM data to be used more widely, and doesn't sacrifice the ability to get back useful improvements to the data. >Rather than adding the complexity and potential for locking people >out that parallel distribution introduces, and the burden of >maintaining it for re-distributors, it is better to simply prohibit >technological protection measures being added by anyone other than >the end user of the data when they install the previously >unprotected data onto their own devices. I'm not sure what you are saying here, but the situation I had in mind is that I work on some commercial software that would like to use OSM data. To do that we would need to pre-process OSM data into our own proprietary format - which involves lossy compression, encryption, building extra meta-data like routing tables, etc. I would like to be able convert OSM data into this format, use it in our app, and make available a reference copy of the snapshot we started from. I'm hoping the intent of 4.6 was to ensure that if OSM went away, and our proprietary map was the only copy of the database in existence, we would have to make the raw .osm available to the world (which is good, IMO). I don't really want to have to make our app accept .osm data as input, since it would be unusable (being able to pre-process at runtime isn't feasible: the USA takes about 2 days prep on a 2Ghz quad-core Mac Pro, so we can't ask someone on an 800Mhz iBook to wait a week...). I don't really want to have to de-compress our copy of the data into .osm format, since I don't think it would be very useful to OSM (we could certainly do it, but since the compression is lossy it would produce a bunch of nodes in different positions and so couldn't be diff'd against OSM to identify changes or confirm there are none). However I would like to be able to let end-users flag up bugs/make changes to map data, which we could feed back into OSM somehow. I think this is a good model, since it benefits all parties: our app gets to use OSM data, our users get to see OSM data, and OSM gets back useful changes. The proposed licence looks like a really good model for geodata to me, as it understands that there are two goals - to encourage wide-spread useage of the data (even commercial use), and to pull back useful changes (and they have to be useful: having someone send back "node X is now at 51.12" is pointless when the real OSM data puts node X at 51.1200345). -dair (irrespective of the final licence, I'd like to thank the OSMF and everyone involved in drawing this up - it is really encouraging to see the amount of effort that has gone into this) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
El Martes, 5 de Febrero de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: > Hi, > > > Basically, pulling every piece of data individually and putting it > > togheter again is a transformation of the OSM DB, AFAIK. > > What if they crowdsource this? 1000s of people copy a tiny bit, and > someone then reassembles it ;-) If it's automated, we send a lawsuit. If it's crowdsourced, we just send a suicide bomber to The People's Map HQ... (note to intelligence agencies: I'm just kidding with the bomb thing...) -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...la Debian no es más difícil, sólo tiene menos colorines al principio. -Andrés Herrera, en e.c.o.l.misc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After all, with the FDL, there was enough "room for mischief" that a > GNU project declared its whole manual to be an invariant section and a > magazine that said its table of contents was an invariant section. > Those uses were clearly not what FDL's authors intended, but there > will always be someone who misinterprets or deliberately misuses a > licence and then the default licensing position is "no licence". But the default position is not "no license" when it comes to databases. What you say is perfectly correct for creative works where copyright applies, but in most countries copyright does not apply to collections of facts and you have to rely on database right in those countries where it exists. Where database right does not exist the default position is that anybody can do what they want. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Hughes wrote: | In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | |> Tom Evans wrote: |>> If we're going to do this anyway, can we not allow users to mark |>> their preference as public domain too? It seems a significant |>> number of OSM participants may be perfectly happy to have their data |>> given away PD, and storing an option per user would make this |>> possible. We're going to do that work of asking each user anyway, |>> so why not let each user mark themselves as |>> one of: |>> |>> a) Public Domain |>> b) Open Database License |>> c) CC by SA (the default now) |> Thus far everyone who signs up to the project has already agreed to |> CC-BY-SA. We don't believe it's a viable option for data licensing |> going forward so would not seek to offer it as a choice. |> |> The idea of storing an optional 'PD?' preference per user is an |> interesting one and we'd welcome feedback as to whether there'd be the |> demand for this. Effectively this would be requesting that OSMF, or |> anyone else, creates a public domain database from your contributions. | | One problem with this idea goes back to David's question about | edit history - if we had a per-user PD flag then only objects which | had never been touched by somebody without that flag set could be | included in any PD data set (modulo the whole question of whether | any edits by such people were "significant" which would be hard to | determine automatically). I think that we should reduce the time before the data becomes public domain from year of editors death (which will be very hard for someone in 100 years time to find out) + 70 years to year of entry into the DB + about 10 years. I don't think any more really helps OSM. The idea that someone in around 100 years time will still have to struggle with the license issues we are setting up now on my data really worries me (I expect most of the community is young enough that we will still be alive more than 30 years from now). Also I think that data should be assigned to the foundation, so that they can allow exceptions absolutely, rather than have to say "Well, I think that's OK, please go and hire your own lawyer to interpret our license". If the community agreed, the foundation could use this as a source of income, like MusicBrainz. This would require the foundation to have a fairly solid democratic basis. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHp6gnz+aYVHdncI0RAmy6AJ4iUqd9lywSE0LJJaiwo5iXBYpW1wCfSnbv cTdkQqrbT/FyAz1Emy+NVno= =JEVj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Hi, > By "room for mischief" I mean "the ability to hand people restricted > work in practice". I mentioned the burden on redistributors as well. > Work may be Free Upstream, but it's important that it is Free On Actual > Delivery as well. Not so important to me, to be honest. But we've been there ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Hi, > Basically, pulling every piece of data individually and putting it togheter > again is a transformation of the OSM DB, AFAIK. What if they crowdsource this? 1000s of people copy a tiny bit, and someone then reassembles it ;-) But to be quite honest, I don't care. If someone invests such an amount of money or labour to get at our data then it must be quite good indeed ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
El Lunes, 4 de Febrero de 2008, Gervase Markham escribió: > My question is this: if the database as a whole is covered by a SA > provision, but the individual facts are equivalent to PD, how can the > law prevent a nefarious person splitting the database into lots of > individual facts by e.g. putting each on a separate web page, then > trawling the pages to reassemble their own database of all the facts, > which they then own? It may have a different schema, but basically all > the data would be there. The law can't prevent that. But OSM (or the OSMF) could sue afterwards. Basically, pulling every piece of data individually and putting it togheter again is a transformation of the OSM DB, AFAIK. This is when the definition of "substantial" in the law kicks in. If they managed to get a hold on a substantial quantity of data by making lots of non-substantial queries, they'll have a problem. Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV. Or, better said, "Your Jurisdiction May Vary". Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brújula: señórula que va montádula en una escóbula. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
MJ Ray wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > If you think it's a bad idea for another reason, then fine, but "room > for mischief" applies to almost all licences. Ultimately, whether > work is Free and Open with a capital F O is how it's actually handled > in practice. By "room for mischief" I mean "the ability to hand people restricted work in practice". I mentioned the burden on redistributors as well. Work may be Free Upstream, but it's important that it is Free On Actual Delivery as well. > As long as Parallel Distribution as specified will stand up as a > requirement if challenged, that's not a problem in itself IMO - it > seems a good way to make DRM copies more expensive and more cumbersome > and so discourage it. It actually makes transparent (sic) copies more expensive and more cumbersome from the point of view of the DRM-enamoured. Having the simple requirement that work be unencumbered sidesteps all this. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Hi, I would like to know more about our talks with the CC folks. After all, the people at Creative Commons have a lot of respect from the world-wide community and I read on the wiki page that: "... We would have liked Creative Commons to have offered a sharealike/attribution data licence that we could adopt. However, their position is that map data should be dedicated to the public domain, ..., the OSMF board does not believe this route is in the project's best long term interests." So they actually listened to us and to the doubts we (some of us) have about CC0, but still they take the position that map data should be CC0. I am sure they didn't just say so on a whim, they must have had good and solid reasons for that, and the OSMF must have even better and more solid reasons for rejecting their suggestion. I mean, CC are not just anybody, they have played a very important part in getting viral licenses accepted in the non-software area, so they themselves must have very good reasons for suggesting CC0. If our only reasons against CC0 are that "we might lose AND data" (which isn't even clear!) or "we might lose MASSGIS data" or "we might lose South London", then I'd say that is not enough... Why, exactly, does CC recommend CC0 even after they have thoroughly looked at our situation, and on what basis does the OSMF board reject the CC suggestion? (If the board's deliberations on the subject are documented somewhere then just point me to that and I'll read up on the arguments.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Hello, Few clarifications and questions about use cases. If I distribute web mapping of my special company data and OSM, I don't have to give my data back to OSM, right? In other words, there's no requirement to distribute, but also, if the map images are distributed, then it doesn't have to be under the same licence. If I zip up the shapefiles used, and put them on my server for folks to download, then these would come under the same licence and be able for OSM to benefit from them? How about putting my propriety data and OSM together locked within an in-car sat nav system. Would this be classed as distribution of the database? What should my company do in this case? Tim ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Dear all The OSMF has been actively investigating the license situation, in that there are many problems with CCBYSAs application to data. We think we have found a solution in the form of the Open Database Licence [http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-database-licence/ ]. This license is similar in many respects to the theme and goals of our existing license but has the added benefit of being applicable to our situation. One way to think of it is CCBYSA for databases. It is early days in data licensing (as opposed to Free/Open software or creative work licensing). The OSMF feel that the ODL license is the way forward for our project and reject the Public Domain Dedication [http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ ] because it offers no 'viral' (share alike) protection to the data. Whilst the license is almost complete, the OSMF have communicated with the authors and have noted a few improvements we would like to make before releasing it (detailed in the FAQ). The FAQ is as of writing not complete on purpose - we foresee questions and so on arising as a result of this email and the FAQ to build on them. You are encouraged to read the relevant licenses and contribute to the legal-talk mailing list and FAQ. The plan, essentially, is to switch license from CCBYSA 2.0 to the Open Database Licence in 4 stages. • Stage 1 - Get suggestions for any changes required in addition to those identified by the OSMF • Stage 2 - Engage the licenses author to amend the license as required • Stage 3 - Email all OSM users who have contributed data with the option of re-licensing their data • Stage 4 - Remove all data from those who do not respond or respond negatively (the hard bit) These stages require patience, understanding, legal and technical knowledge and represent an important change in OpenStreetMap. This license is not the final decision, but a beginning. We won't find a perfect license (indeed, many disagree on todays license) or one we can all 100% agree on, but it's hoped that we can find the best approach we can and the best way forward for OpenStreetMap. PS Please remember to reply to legal-talk [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk ] FAQ etc on wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License_FAQ Steve Coast, Chairman of the OSMF With thanks to Richard Fairhurst and Andy Robinson for direct involvement and the whole OSMF board for support. ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
