Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Kathleen Lu]

Hi Maurizio,
We did discuss CDLA at the last meeting, and are still considering what
communications to put out about it.
But for your specific situation of whether CDLA Permissive would be a good
choice for Italian public administration officials/agencies, it could work,
but I am not sure that the administrators would like CDLA Permissive any
more than CC-BY.
CDLA Permissive is not the same as CC-BY (there are some interesting
differences in the details), but at a high level, CDLA would allow the
public to use & redistribute the dataset for free. I'm not sure what
concern they could have about CC-BY that CDLA would solve. Is this related
to section 3.3 that you quoted?
Also, (I don't know what you've tried asking the administrators before, so
sorry if this is duplicative) have you already tried asking them just for
permission to add to OSM? Or to license (or dual-license) under Open
Government License or ODbL?
Best,
Kathleen


On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:33 AM Maurizio Napolitano  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:34 PM Kathleen Lu 
> wrote:
> >
> > WOF aside, we can put it on our agenda to discuss whether the
> CDLA-permissive license is compatible with ODbL (note that there is also a
> CDLA-sharealike, which is not compatible).
> > I've started to see it mentioned in other circles as well.
> > -Kathleen
>
> Hi Kathleen
> Any news about the compatibility of the CDLA Permissive with the ODbL?
> I want understand if the CDLA Permissive is a good license to spread
> into the (italian) public administration with the goal to permit -
> without problems - the import for OpenStreetMap.
> By reading the license i found this point
>
> 3.3 You and each Data Provider agree that Enhanced Data shall not be
> considered a work of joint authorship by virtue of its relationship to
> Data licensed under this Agreement and shall not require either any
> obligation of accounting to or the consent of any Data Provider.
>
> PS:
> I don't intend to import the WOF data
> I want to understand if this is the license to be taken by public
> administrators who don't want to give up a license like che cc-by.
>
> --
> --
> Le informazioni contenute nella presente comunicazione sono di natura
> privata e come tali sono da considerarsi riservate ed indirizzate
> esclusivamente ai destinatari indicati e per le finalità strettamente
> legate al relativo contenuto. Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per
> errore, vi preghiamo di eliminarlo e di inviare una comunicazione
> all’indirizzo e-mail del mittente.
>
> --
> The information transmitted is
> intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
> contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in
> error, please contact the sender and delete the material.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Maurizio Napolitano]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:34 PM Kathleen Lu  wrote:
>
> WOF aside, we can put it on our agenda to discuss whether the CDLA-permissive 
> license is compatible with ODbL (note that there is also a CDLA-sharealike, 
> which is not compatible).
> I've started to see it mentioned in other circles as well.
> -Kathleen

Hi Kathleen
Any news about the compatibility of the CDLA Permissive with the ODbL?
I want understand if the CDLA Permissive is a good license to spread
into the (italian) public administration with the goal to permit -
without problems - the import for OpenStreetMap.
By reading the license i found this point

3.3 You and each Data Provider agree that Enhanced Data shall not be
considered a work of joint authorship by virtue of its relationship to
Data licensed under this Agreement and shall not require either any
obligation of accounting to or the consent of any Data Provider.

PS:
I don't intend to import the WOF data
I want to understand if this is the license to be taken by public
administrators who don't want to give up a license like che cc-by.

-- 
--
Le informazioni contenute nella presente comunicazione sono di natura 
privata e come tali sono da considerarsi riservate ed indirizzate 
esclusivamente ai destinatari indicati e per le finalità strettamente 
legate al relativo contenuto. Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per 
errore, vi preghiamo di eliminarlo e di inviare una comunicazione 
all’indirizzo e-mail del mittente.

--
The information transmitted is 
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in 
error, please contact the sender and delete the material.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Rory McCann]

On 22/08/18 20:06, Kathleen Lu wrote:

(Best I know from various rumors is that various big companies wanted
a LF-blessed open data license and they had things they did not like
about ODbL.)


AFAIK the Linux Foundation only has corporate members, and has a board
which only (big) private companies can vote for. Only corporations which
pay $500k per year can vote for 50%+ of the board.

Currently LF "Platinum members", who (now) get 1 board member each (out
of 22) AT, Cisco, Fujitsu, Google, Hitachi, Huawei, IBM, Intel,
Microsoft, NEC, Oracle, Qualcomm, Samsung, Tencent and VMWare.

See also: https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/39546.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Naturally OSM has a wider remit overall, but it is completely clear that
mapzen was trying to replace OSM as the go to source for global place
(and POIs) locations and names.

We are not perfect and there are things that we could do better to
improve our competitive position, in particular mapping of places (that
are  not administrative entities) as areas is still not really well
worked out.

Simon


Am 22.08.2018 um 21:00 schrieb Bryan Housel:
> Hmm - I’ve always felt Who’s on First was more of a Wikidata
> competitor than anything.  It contains historical names.. I don’t see
> it as really having the same mission as OSM at all.
>
>
>
>> On Aug 22, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Simon Poole > > wrote:
>>
>> WOF as a OSM compeitor.
>>
>>
>> Am 22.08.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Kathleen Lu:
>>>
>>> > PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is
>>> supporting an
>>> > OSM competitor not included.
>>>
>>> mmm... this is not good.
>>> Do you know the reasons?
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon - did you mean an OSM competitor or an ODbL competitor?
>>>
>>> (Best I know from various rumors is that various big companies
>>> wanted a LF-blessed open data license and they had things they did
>>> not like about ODbL.)
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Bryan Housel]

Hmm - I’ve always felt Who’s on First was more of a Wikidata competitor than 
anything.  It contains historical names.. I don’t see it as really having the 
same mission as OSM at all.



> On Aug 22, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
> WOF as a OSM compeitor.
> 
> Am 22.08.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Kathleen Lu:
>> 
>> > PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is supporting an
>> > OSM competitor not included.
>> 
>> mmm... this is not good.
>> Do you know the reasons?
>> 
>> Simon - did you mean an OSM competitor or an ODbL competitor?
>> 
>> (Best I know from various rumors is that various big companies wanted a 
>> LF-blessed open data license and they had things they did not like about 
>> ODbL.)
>> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Kathleen Lu]

Ah, but wouldn't the alternative be for OSM to be under the LF
umbrella/decrees, and we couldn't have that, you and I would be out of a
job, Simon ;)

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:08 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> WOF as a OSM compeitor.
>
> Am 22.08.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Kathleen Lu:
>
>
> > PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is supporting an
>> > OSM competitor not included.
>>
>> mmm... this is not good.
>> Do you know the reasons?
>>
>
> Simon - did you mean an OSM competitor or an ODbL competitor?
>
> (Best I know from various rumors is that various big companies wanted a
> LF-blessed open data license and they had things they did not like about
> ODbL.)
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Maurizio Napolitano]

> See
> https://github.com/whosonfirst/whosonfirst-sources/blob/master/sources/README.md
> for a long list of sources , inlcuding lots of CC BY (including CC BY
> 4.0). BTW about 10s in to my inspection I found a claim of a CC0 licence
> for something that is clearly not CC0 licensed.

Thanks!
I found in the list the IGM - Istituto Geografico Militare (the
Italian organization with the official mandate of the management of
cartography in Italy).
This sounds bad:  IGM doesn't have a open data policy.
By navigate the geoportals of some italian regions it's possibile find
a dataset with the list of the places in Italy made and owned by IGM.
In Italy we have the principle "open by default" ( =  a dataset
publishend on a website of an italian public administration without a
license is open data), but, in my point of view, if you find a dataset
created and owned by another organization ( eg. IGM), you can't assume
this situation.
If you navigate the IGM website, you can't find an open data section
or dataset with an open license.

I prefer to believe that this is a naive mistake

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

WOF as a OSM compeitor.


Am 22.08.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Kathleen Lu:
>
> > PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is
> supporting an
> > OSM competitor not included.
>
> mmm... this is not good.
> Do you know the reasons?
>
>
> Simon - did you mean an OSM competitor or an ODbL competitor?
>
> (Best I know from various rumors is that various big companies wanted
> a LF-blessed open data license and they had things they did not like
> about ODbL.)
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Kathleen Lu]

> > PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is supporting an
> > OSM competitor not included.
>
> mmm... this is not good.
> Do you know the reasons?
>

Simon - did you mean an OSM competitor or an ODbL competitor?

(Best I know from various rumors is that various big companies wanted a
LF-blessed open data license and they had things they did not like about
ODbL.)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Am 22.08.2018 um 19:17 schrieb Simon Poole:
> .. but I
> wouldn't be surprised if they still had CC BY sources, which as we all
> know are not suitable for use in OSM .
See
https://github.com/whosonfirst/whosonfirst-sources/blob/master/sources/README.md
for a long list of sources , inlcuding lots of CC BY (including CC BY
4.0). BTW about 10s in to my inspection I found a claim of a CC0 licence
for something that is clearly not CC0 licensed.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Maurizio Napolitano]

thanks for the answer

> PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is supporting an
> OSM competitor not included.

mmm... this is not good.
Do you know the reasons?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Maurizio Napolitano]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:35 PM Kathleen Lu  wrote:
>
> WOF aside, we can put it on our agenda to discuss whether the CDLA-permissive 
> license is compatible with ODbL (note that there is also a CDLA-sharealike, 
> which is not compatible).
> I've started to see it mentioned in other circles as well.

thanks!
IMHO:
as attribution license for the data is more "smart" as other and maybe
- if there is compatibility - we can suggest the use of this license
instead of cc-by
For the CC0 there is a group of lawyers (in Italy) who don't consider it valid.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Kathleen Lu]

WOF aside, we can put it on our agenda to discuss whether the
CDLA-permissive license is compatible with ODbL (note that there is also a
CDLA-sharealike, which is not compatible).
I've started to see it mentioned in other circles as well.
-Kathleen

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:19 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> Hi Maurizio
>
> If the context is actually using data from whosonfirst, I don't believe
> that this is actually a sensible question. Any data source used by wof
> that actually has a licence that is suitable for use in OSM could be
> used directly without the added complication of the linux foundations
> licence. Historically wof has suffered from similar issues as
> "Open"Addresses, I believe however that they put a significant effort
> into cleaning things up a bit before the demise of Mapzen, but I
> wouldn't be surprised if they still had CC BY sources, which as we all
> know are not suitable for use in OSM .
>
> Outside of that, no, the LWG has not made a determination if at all or
> with what caveats CDLA licensed data could be included in OSM.
>
> Simon
>
> PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is supporting an
> OSM competitor not included.
>
>
> Am 22.08.2018 um 15:27 schrieb Maurizio Napolitano:
> > Today I became aware of this open data license created by the Linux
> Foundation
> > https://cdla.io/permissive-1-0/
> >
> > In my point of view this license appears very pragmatic.
> > I read the license text, the FAQs and this nice blog post of the
> > project Who's On First
> > https://whosonfirst.org/blog/2018/08/21/license-change/
> >
> > I need to understand if, a dataset under this license, can be imported
> > in OpenStreetMap without asking more permissions to the data provider.
> > The section 3 is dedicated to the "Conditions on Rights Granted"
> > There is a restriction dedicated to the rules for the attribution, but
> > it appears very light.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > In any case, the CLDA Permisive sounds me more efficienty as the cc-by.
> >
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Hi Maurizio

If the context is actually using data from whosonfirst, I don't believe
that this is actually a sensible question. Any data source used by wof
that actually has a licence that is suitable for use in OSM could be
used directly without the added complication of the linux foundations
licence. Historically wof has suffered from similar issues as
"Open"Addresses, I believe however that they put a significant effort
into cleaning things up a bit before the demise of Mapzen, but I
wouldn't be surprised if they still had CC BY sources, which as we all
know are not suitable for use in OSM .

Outside of that, no, the LWG has not made a determination if at all or
with what caveats CDLA licensed data could be included in OSM.

Simon

PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is supporting an
OSM competitor not included.


Am 22.08.2018 um 15:27 schrieb Maurizio Napolitano:
> Today I became aware of this open data license created by the Linux Foundation
> https://cdla.io/permissive-1-0/
>
> In my point of view this license appears very pragmatic.
> I read the license text, the FAQs and this nice blog post of the
> project Who's On First
> https://whosonfirst.org/blog/2018/08/21/license-change/
>
> I need to understand if, a dataset under this license, can be imported
> in OpenStreetMap without asking more permissions to the data provider.
> The section 3 is dedicated to the "Conditions on Rights Granted"
> There is a restriction dedicated to the rules for the attribution, but
> it appears very light.
>
> What do you think?
>
> In any case, the CLDA Permisive sounds me more efficienty as the cc-by.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

[Maurizio Napolitano]

Today I became aware of this open data license created by the Linux Foundation
https://cdla.io/permissive-1-0/

In my point of view this license appears very pragmatic.
I read the license text, the FAQs and this nice blog post of the
project Who's On First
https://whosonfirst.org/blog/2018/08/21/license-change/

I need to understand if, a dataset under this license, can be imported
in OpenStreetMap without asking more permissions to the data provider.
The section 3 is dedicated to the "Conditions on Rights Granted"
There is a restriction dedicated to the rules for the attribution, but
it appears very light.

What do you think?

In any case, the CLDA Permisive sounds me more efficienty as the cc-by.

-- 
--
Le informazioni contenute nella presente comunicazione sono di natura 
privata e come tali sono da considerarsi riservate ed indirizzate 
esclusivamente ai destinatari indicati e per le finalità strettamente 
legate al relativo contenuto. Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per 
errore, vi preghiamo di eliminarlo e di inviare una comunicazione 
all’indirizzo e-mail del mittente.

--
The information transmitted is 
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in 
error, please contact the sender and delete the material.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk