Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
On Tuesday 23 February 2016, Simon Poole wrote: > > - review of the existing OSM community guidelines related to the ODbL > - ODbL review with an eye to a 1.1 release (gather points for > clarification and similar) > - review CC-BY 4.0 compatibility as an input licence to the ODbL > licensed databases > - sub-licensing in the ODbL and CC licences > - a treaty on the "can I be sued by an OSM contributor" issue > - grace periods in the CC and ODbL licences These are very good topics i think - not only because they are highly relevant for the OSM community but also since they are at the same time suited for a student to work on. > Naturally OSM-US is completely free to discuss whatever it wants with > whomever it wants, but that works the other way around too. Indeed - and in this context it is hairy if OSM-US implies relevance of the results for the OSMF and the global OSM community - as done for example in the final paragraph of [1]: "Your final analysis should take the form of an options memo to the OSMF License Working Group and OSMF Board with a recommendation as to the best approach or approaches." At best this is a recipe for students/law school for making a fool of themselves (if i was a teacher at that law school i'd kick such project out for being highly unsuited for student work) and an obstacle in future open discourse of the OSM community (see Frederiks remarks regarding 'what we want'). At worst it is a blatant attempt to influence future discourse by implying whatever options suggested are actually in any way more relevant than other possibilities. But as you said ultimately this is of course between OSM-US and that law school - and they are also free to make recommendations to whoever they want to. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q89ImYlJd4Jm1E9JYL5lpcLGiZDbvYpYg5Vazdg_A2w/edit -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
Am 22.02.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Mike N: > On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote: >> Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I >> wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap >> US but some company whose name starts with Map* > > Speaking as an OSM US participant and not affiliated with any > company, I would find it interesting if OSM would become more than an > academic curiosity in the US. That is, to power more services than > Craigslist. Well, given that there are US companies to which Craigslist is a spec of dust in the Atlantic in comparison, that have no issues using OSM outside of the US, your desire is clearly is not a legal question, but far more a quality issue that only the US OSM community can address and resolve. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
There is, naturally, a longish story before this, not really necessary, drama. In August last year Kate hat contact with a law school about potential input from a seminar or similar format on topics in the context of licensing. While there was a fair amount of discussion and some suggestions with respect to potential suitable topics, in the end it fizzled out and nothing actually happened. Very early this year (aka before we (LWG and myself) were back from the holiday season) another similar opportunity presented itself and in the rush to secure the contact a number of "DO NOT PRESS, THIS WILL CAUSE CONFLAGRATION" buttons were pressed, including one labelled "geocoding". The resulting blaze was however contained reasonably fast and the position of the LWG remains the same as before, that there is nothing to be said against input in such a form as long as it is clear that we are not seeking formal legal advice with all its associated consequences. Obviously contentious high-profile topics probably are not the best selection for student work and should only be farmed out after due consideration. If anybody wants to be truly bored, this is some of the bullet-point only topics that I've suggested: - review of the existing OSM community guidelines related to the ODbL - ODbL review with an eye to a 1.1 release (gather points for clarification and similar) - review CC-BY 4.0 compatibility as an input licence to the ODbL licensed databases - sub-licensing in the ODbL and CC licences - a treaty on the "can I be sued by an OSM contributor" issue - grace periods in the CC and ODbL licences Naturally OSM-US is completely free to discuss whatever it wants with whomever it wants, but that works the other way around too. Simon Am 22.02.2016 um 10:38 schrieb Simone Cortesi: > Hi, > Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I > wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap > US but some company whose name starts with Map* > > This should be disclosed. > > The Foundation doesn't need a new licence for our data. > > 1+ for Mr. Henk. > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Henk Hoff > wrote: >> It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for >> this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the >> Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be). >> >> >> >> This discussion should be led on Foundation level. I assume the Board is >> taking action to get this issue resolved. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Henk >> >> >> >> >> >> Van: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr] >> Verzonden: zaterdag 20 februari 2016 15:05 >> Aan: Richard Weait >> CC: ; >> talk@openstreetmap.org Talk ; talk-us >> >> Onderwerp: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] license changes >> >> >> >> Again, and again, and again... and each time from the US if I'm not wrong. >> >> >> >> 2016-02-18 23:35 GMT+01:00 Richard Weait : >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Steve Coast wrote: >>> Any license change process, or anything remotely close to it, should be >>> open and transparent. It should involve the community from the start and any >>> company that wants to participate too. >> I'm aligned with that. >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France >> >> >> ___ >> osmf-talk mailing list >> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk >> > > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote: Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap US but some company whose name starts with Map* Speaking as an OSM US participant and not affiliated with any company, I would find it interesting if OSM would become more than an academic curiosity in the US. That is, to power more services than Craigslist. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
Hi, Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap US but some company whose name starts with Map* This should be disclosed. The Foundation doesn't need a new licence for our data. 1+ for Mr. Henk. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Henk Hoff wrote: > It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for > this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the > Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be). > > > > This discussion should be led on Foundation level. I assume the Board is > taking action to get this issue resolved. > > > > Cheers, > > Henk > > > > > > Van: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr] > Verzonden: zaterdag 20 februari 2016 15:05 > Aan: Richard Weait > CC: ; > talk@openstreetmap.org Talk ; talk-us > > Onderwerp: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] license changes > > > > Again, and again, and again... and each time from the US if I'm not wrong. > > > > 2016-02-18 23:35 GMT+01:00 Richard Weait : > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Steve Coast wrote: >> Any license change process, or anything remotely close to it, should be >> open and transparent. It should involve the community from the start and any >> company that wants to participate too. > > I'm aligned with that. > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > > -- > > Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France > > > ___ > osmf-talk mailing list > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk > -- -S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
2016-02-21 22:23 GMT+01:00 Henk Hoff : > It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for > this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the > Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be). > > > > This discussion should be led on Foundation level. I assume the Board is > taking action to get this issue resolved. > +1 Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
