Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: ...From Sunday, we will run 5 weeks allowing folks who decline the ability to continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only contributions. The objective is get the remaining 77,000 to accept or decline. If that runs slowly, we add up to 5 more weeks. Else, we proceed to the question of actually switching from CC-BY-SA to ODbL and has no date set. Mike, if the OSMF is permitting current contributors to decline the CTs and continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only contributions, why can't the OSMF allow new contributors to sign up and decline the CTs and begin editing CC-BY-SA only contributions? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On 17/04/2011 08:39, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote: ...From Sunday, we will run 5 weeks allowing folks who decline the ability to continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only contributions. The objective is get the remaining 77,000 to accept or decline. If that runs slowly, we add up to 5 more weeks. Else, we proceed to the question of actually switching from CC-BY-SA to ODbL and has no date set. Mike, if the OSMF is permitting current contributors to decline the CTs and continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only contributions, why can't the OSMF allow new contributors to sign up and decline the CTs and begin editing CC-BY-SA only contributions? Andrew, Time and not making a rod for our own backs is the short answer. There are 370,000 registered users today. We were much criticised, and in retrospect I think rightly, for trying to push things through while the user base was small and the process maneagable for a volunteer team. Doing it this way, the problem does not grow and we are moving at the much slower pace demanded. Reaching, informing and persuading 77,000 folks with 12,500 of them contributing 98%+ of all OSM data is still daunting but possible. Older users should also have been around long enough for most to know that a license change has been actively discussed since 2005 and be aware of some of the issues. As to the converse. Much as I would like to completely assume that the process will succeed, it may not, and it would be unfair to cut off older contributors in this way until the numbers become clearer. If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected. If we do not, new users are still unaffected, they have agreed to the use of either CC-BY-SA or ODbL. They also have the right, which older contributors do not, of triggering a democratic, frameworked and much shorter process to demand a license change ... which could of course include CC-BY-SA. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected. Now would be a good time to mention what those numbers are. How many users need to agree to CT before the community is comfortable with the consequential data loss? What percentage of content must be covered by the new license terms before the community is comfortable with the consequential data loss? When are you planning to ask the community these questions? Or are you planning to make up these numbers in a closed room? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 12:16 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected. If we do not, new users are still unaffected, they have agreed to the use of either CC-BY-SA or ODbL. What about a case for example of a mapper who wants to map the flood/cyclone disaster areas in Australia? The 'new mappers' are affected as they dont have the right to use any of our data sources as they have already agreed to incompatible terms. The 'old mappers' are affected because they have the right to use the disaster aerial imagery, but OSM has removed their right to contribute data back. Sure, in the long term, these 'new users' are unaffected, but if they want to use data sources right now, they may not be able to. But thats okay, Im sure Bing will start giving away 3cm imagery for our country soon (or maybe we should just settle with 15cm imagery (if lucky) that provides blotchy coverage like they give us at the moment, after all, if we're going to shoo away data providers who are giving us better quality information, then its about all we deserve to have as a community. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz writes: In addition to Dermot's comments, we initially considered dual-licensing CC-BY-SA but, yes, regretfully rejected it as it undermines a major objective of the license change which is to provide the strongest protection of OSM geodata in as many jurisdictions as possible. Thanks for your reply. I understand that those in charge of this matter do not think that a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual licence is the optimal answer from a purely legal point of view. I don't expect I would be able to persuade them otherwise, any more than they would be able to persuade me and others away from our view that staying with CC-BY-SA only is the best option. My point is that the final scheme chosen should reflect the whole project and try as far as possible to include everyone. It's not a case of simply picking the 'best' answer and then pushing it through, but of finding a balanced compromise that everyone can agree too. By excluding contributors who don't agree with the new scheme you are wielding a very sharp stick. That makes it important to be very restrained in what you try to push through. It would not be a good idea to set a precedent that the OSMF should simply push through the 'best' answer and exclude dissenters. One day, you might find yourself on the other side of the stick. So while I understand that the great and the good who have considered the licensing question did not favour dual licensing as the ideal solution, it may nonetheless be the right compromise. You are asking a great deal of people who joined the project in good faith to make a free, CC-licensed map of the world, not controlled by any single body. They would have to compromise a fair bit to accept the new licence and the new way of working, where the OSMF has the final say over licensing. If it appears that you aren't willing to compromise on any point at all - not even to allow use of the older licence as an option - then it is less likely that contributors will feel ready to make the necessary compromises on their side. There has to be a bit of give and take from both sides, even if only a small bit. I'd also like to note that of the two big examples given of major and successful relicensings - Mozilla and Wikipedia - in both cases the old licence continues to be available as an option for those who want it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
2011/4/16 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: By excluding contributors who don't agree with the new scheme you are wielding a very sharp stick It would not be a good idea to set a precedent that the OSMF should simply push through the 'best' answer and exclude dissenters. One day, you might find yourself on the other side of the stick. I agree that it is important how a community deals with dissenters. So while I understand that the great and the good who have considered the licensing question did not favour dual licensing as the ideal solution, it may nonetheless be the right compromise. As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) with our data not protected in some jurisdictions, which was one of the main reasons to go to another license. That would be a really big compromise. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) Show us the evidence to back up this assertion please. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:10 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) Show us the evidence to back up this assertion please. It's not just without evidence, it's logically nonsensical. If CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to OSM, then there's no harm in using it. If OSM is public domain, then slapping ODbL on top of it doesn't magically make it proprietary. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:38:30 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: So I chose a slightly humorous response, treating Anthony as if he really were an innocent newbie. I didn't expect that I would have to explain the humour, but I guess I should have known better. Humour is quite language specific. I don't expect you to get Strine jokes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: He knows perfectly well, because he has been told a thousand times, that one of the countries where CC-BY-SA doesn't work for our data is his country of residence, the USA. Being told something is not equivalent to knowing it. There is absolutely no evidence that CC isn't recognised for map data in the United States. He has gone on record, multiple times, saying that he likes the CC-BY-SA precisely because he belives that it doesn't work. I'm not sure what you mean by the intentionally ambiguous phrase doesn't work. CC-BY-SA works exactly as intended. In fact, the license even explicitly states its intent: 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. In any case, my question was what jurisdiction does not recognize CC for map data. I think my message was entirely in order. Even a newbie could be expected to read at least a few articles of background on our Wiki before engaging in a discussion. Anyone reading e.g. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable would immediately be informed that the USA is one of the countries in which CC-BY-SA won't work for our data. Again with the intentionally ambiguous phrase won't work. And again, being told something is not equivalent to knowing it. As you probably know, Anthony's account on OSM has been terminated because he openly boasted about violating copyright. That is completely untrue. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: CC-BY-SA works exactly as intended. In fact, the license even explicitly states its intent: 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. This is a fundamental principle of free licenses. Any license which does not contain such a provision, is not a free license. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
Hi Ed, On 13/04/2011 16:15, Ed Avis wrote: Michael Collinsonmikeat ayeltd.biz writes: If you are a user of OpenStreetMap data, this does not affect you. OpenStreetMap data continues to be licensed only under CC-BY-SA and this will continue until we reach a critical mass of acceptance of the new license. Accepting the new licence doesn't automatically imply rejection of the old one. The contributor terms currently proposed are for the map to be distributed under one or more of CC-BY-SA and ODbL/DbCL. So the existing licence could be continued as an option, for those users who prefer it, even after a changeover. In addition to Dermot's comments, we initially considered dual-licensing CC-BY-SA but, yes, regretfully rejected it as it undermines a major objective of the license change which is to provide the strongest protection of OSM geodata in as many jurisdictions as possible. Future CC 4 dual-licensing is certainly a possibility if that is what active contributors want. CC 4 suite process is being kicked off and we have had direct meetings with Mike Linksvayer, Vice President and Diane Peters, General Counsel. It will take about four years. What's the plan for deciding whether and when to cut off CC-BY-SA distribution? Would it require a 2/3 vote of contributors? 39% of all users have now accepted the new license and contributor terms, and while I am not sure of my assumptions I estimate that is about 63% of active and previously active contributors . However, we clearly need much, much more than that to preserve data integrity at switch over and have two further phases to go [1]. From Sunday, we will run 5 weeks allowing folks who decline the ability to continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only contributions. The objective is get the remaining 77,000 to accept or decline. If that runs slowly, we add up to 5 more weeks. Else, we proceed to the question of actually switching from CC-BY-SA to ODbL and has no date set. This requires reasonable community consensus that the amount of ODbL licensable data is maximised both globally and locally and that everything that can be done has been done. Mike License Working Group [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions where CC isn't recognised for map data. 1) What jurisdictions would that be? 2) If the license isn't recognized, doesn't everything revert to all rights reserved? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
Hi Anthony, Anthony wrote: I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions where CC isn't recognised for map data. 1) What jurisdictions would that be? 2) If the license isn't recognized, doesn't everything revert to all rights reserved? You're new to the project obviously. Welcome! If you're interested in the background story to the license change, and why we consider CC unsuitable, I recommend that you read the archives of the legal-talk list (see http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk) as well as the various Wiki articles (you'll notice the license change banner on wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki right away). If, thereafter, any questions remain, you can ask then on the legal-talk list and I'm sure they will be promptly answered. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
David, David Murn wrote: Did I just seriously read that right? *Sigh* You know as well as I do that Anthony is a troll with a long history, here and elsewhere. He knows perfectly well, because he has been told a thousand times, that one of the countries where CC-BY-SA doesn't work for our data is his country of residence, the USA. He has gone on record, multiple times, saying that he likes the CC-BY-SA precisely because he belives that it doesn't work. So him asking, in that innocent manner, which countries would that be, is just prime trolling, hoping that someone takes the bait and he can, yet again, involve everyone into a word-mincing discussion that gets us precisely nowhere. Now everybody has their own way of reacting to such trolls. The best way is of course to ignore them; but every now and then you have to react lest new readers of this list might get the impression that Anthony's question was *not* answered and discussed a thousand times. You could also get all agressive and dump a bucket of swear words over Anthony; it would certainly be well deserved but tends to poison the mood. So I chose a slightly humorous response, treating Anthony as if he really were an innocent newbie. I didn't expect that I would have to explain the humour, but I guess I should have known better. Is this a sign of things to come? Is this really the way that OSMF will treat new contributors in the future? I am not OSMF. And it is neither the task nor the privilege of OSMF to treat new contributors. I think my message was entirely in order. Even a newbie could be expected to read at least a few articles of background on our Wiki before engaging in a discussion. Anyone reading e.g. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable would immediately be informed that the USA is one of the countries in which CC-BY-SA won't work for our data. Wouldnt it be easier to simply answer the question, if you really had anything substantial to contribute? While we all understand that you believe licence nitty-gritty (or, anything about the licence for that matter, even data removal) should be on legal-talk, surely it would be easier to simply answer some simple easy questions with simple easy answers, rather than forcing people to read legalese (or the more likely option, that they just abandon OSM completely). As you probably know, Anthony's account on OSM has been terminated because he openly boasted about violating copyright. He is one of the very few people whose net contribution to OSM is indeed negative. He did not ask this question because he was truly interested in anything; his only motive was to drag us all into a repetition of discussions we've already had a thousand times, into wasting precious time and words for nothing. And thanks to you he has once again succeeded. I will now stop responding to your messages because you seem to lack either the ability or the willingness to understand what I'm saying, and it is quite taxing for me to express everything in a way that cannot possibly be misread by you. Perhaps others have more luck in trying to explain things to you. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz writes: If you are a user of OpenStreetMap data, this does not affect you. OpenStreetMap data continues to be licensed only under CC-BY-SA and this will continue until we reach a critical mass of acceptance of the new license. Accepting the new licence doesn't automatically imply rejection of the old one. The contributor terms currently proposed are for the map to be distributed under one or more of CC-BY-SA and ODbL/DbCL. So the existing licence could be continued as an option, for those users who prefer it, even after a changeover. What's the plan for deciding whether and when to cut off CC-BY-SA distribution? Would it require a 2/3 vote of contributors? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
On 13 April 2011 15:15, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: What's the plan for deciding whether and when to cut off CC-BY-SA distribution? Would it require a 2/3 vote of contributors? I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions where CC isn't recognised for map data. Given that this is a main goal of the change, it seems that removing CC as a possible licence (for the data at least - it might be that it would be OK for map tiles) can't be avoided. That said, under the new CT, the door seems to remain open to a reintroduction of a (later version, improved?) CC licence if such were deemed to be Free and Open and subject to the 2/3 mandate. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
Dermot McNally dermotm at gmail.com writes: What's the plan for deciding whether and when to cut off CC-BY-SA distribution? Would it require a 2/3 vote of contributors? I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions where CC isn't recognised for map data. Given that this is a main goal of the change, It's _a_ goal but I think the more important selling points for ODbL/DbCL are the positive ones - more uses it would permit for the data, for example distributing map tiles without having to follow any particular licence for them. In my view the 'negative' selling points - that it would supposedly allow the OSMF to sue people in all the cases where the map is currently being used wrongly and we can't do anything - are less central to the project's vision. Also note that CC-BY-SA 2.0 is simply a grant of rights under copyright law. If copyright does not apply, then it has not granted anything. So in fact the whole question of whether copyright applies can be sidestepped: people can agree to differ on this matter and pick the licence to their taste. In the end, legal reasons aren't the most important ones. I hope that OSM can be a broad church. The aim is for everyone to feel able to agree to the CTs, whichever faction they belong to, or none. So it would be good to follow a broad-based licensing plan that can accommodate everyone. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
On 14 April 2011 00:49, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: It's _a_ goal but I think the more important selling points for ODbL/DbCL are the positive ones - more uses it would permit for the data, for example distributing map tiles without having to follow any particular licence for them. Some claim it would need attribution as a minimum, however it may even need a license agreement from end users so the ODBL applies to tiles not just map data. Otherwise data could be reversed back into vector format, with no minimum license, which seems to breach ODBL to me. In any case I'm yet to get a straight answer for that. In my view the 'negative' selling points - that it would supposedly allow the OSMF to sue people in all the cases where the map is currently being used wrongly and we can't do anything - are less central to the project's vision. How many parties have needed to be sued so far because they refuse to comply with CC-by-SA? In the end, legal reasons aren't the most important ones. I hope that OSM can be a broad church. The aim is for everyone to feel able to agree to the CTs, whichever faction they belong to, or none. So it would be good to follow a broad-based licensing plan that can accommodate everyone. Why do we even need the CTs, supposedly we needed a new license, but all that is going to do is remove large tracks of data, and an increasing distrust in OSM-F both to do things morally and even smoothly at all, at this point I highly doubt they could even successfully organise a piss up in a brewery... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
