Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi, Mike Collinson wrote: > If any one is interested in what the changes are and why, I'll be writing to > the legal-talk list shortly. *waits patiently* ;-) 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] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 09/02/10 17:06, Mike Collinson wrote: > At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM > and OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been > slightly modified and the latest version can be seen here > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms . These modifications are certainly an improvement. Thank you :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Stefan de Konink wrote: > Is goes 'edited the project' then as far as 'wrote a > wikipage', 'submitted a bug', 'edited the source'. > > Or is exclusively to geo-data? We're only talking about the licensing of geodata here. There's no reasoning for a coder to have a say over data which they haven't edited. If you've edited (say) the source of JOSM, then that contribution is under GPL. If you've edited the source of Potlatch, it's public domain. If you want to encourage the respective project maintainers to change their software licensing, that's fine, but it's a different matter to CC-BY-SA->ODbL. Similarly, AIUI the wiki will stay licensed as CC-BY-SA because it's a creative work. Sometimes a _very_ creative work... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/New-OSM-GeoData-License-Status-tp4544199p4548227.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> This is much better. Really pleased to see this.
I especially like the
you ("You")
bit. It sounds so ... legal.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi, Stefan de Konink wrote: > Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF > membership? Of course. There are many in OSMF who would actually like to implement this the other way round - anyone who is an active contributor is automatically an OSMF member. But this is not possible, legally, because being an OSMF member also carries an (albeit small) amount of responsibilities which we cannot shift onto someone just because they make a few edits. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Op 10-02-10 15:19, Grant Slater schreef: > On 10 February 2010 14:09, Stefan de Konink wrote: > >> a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has >> edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. >> there is a demonstrated interest over time); and >> has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and >> responds within 3 weeks. >> >> >> Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF >> membership? >> > > Yes. Is goes 'edited the project' then as far as 'wrote a wikipage', 'submitted a bug', 'edited the source'. Or is exclusively to geo-data? Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 10 February 2010 14:09, Stefan de Konink wrote: > a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has > edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. > there is a demonstrated interest over time); and > has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and > responds within 3 weeks. > > > Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF > membership? > Yes. / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Op 10-02-10 14:57, Richard Fairhurst schreef: > > Michael Collinson wrote: >> At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM and >> OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been slightly >> modified and the latest version can be seen here >> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms > > This is much better. Really pleased to see this. a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF membership? Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Michael Collinson wrote: > At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM and > OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been slightly > modified and the latest version can be seen here > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms This is much better. Really pleased to see this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/New-OSM-GeoData-License-Status-tp4544199p4547998.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 10 February 2010 23:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Truth is, you can legally be an asshole. I wasn't comment on the ethics of doing so, merely if it could be done legally, the sticking point here is people that won't respond and what to do about their past contributions, not about people that object. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi, John Smith wrote: > If the reason for changing licenses is because cc-by isn't applicable > for geodata doesn't that mean that essentially the current data can > just be converted to ODBL without needing "written" permission to > change it? This has been said about 150 times, by various people who all seem to have a world view in which there is either right or wrong and nothing in between. Truth is, you can legally be an asshole. OSMF tries not to be one, that's all. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 10 February 2010 23:17, Pieren wrote: > But now, the OSMF should speed-up the transition ! We are many contributors > that are reluctant to modify or improve existing data because of the threat > that many old or minor contributions will disappear - not because people > will reject the new license but more because they will not reply to the Odbl > change request (especially those who didn't edit anything since month or > years, e.g. the coastlines). If the reason for changing licenses is because cc-by isn't applicable for geodata doesn't that mean that essentially the current data can just be converted to ODBL without needing "written" permission to change it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: > The next step is introduce "dual licensing" for *new* OpenStreetMap > contributors as soon as possible. When they register, they will be asked to > license their contributions under both CC-BY-SA and ODbL until and when the > ODbL is finally in place. This is an important step as it has always been > the most urgent step step in the process ... the longer we leave it, the > more contributors we have to be contacted. > > Seeing the huge amount of reactions on this post here or on the legal-talk list, my guess is that everyone is tired about the license change process. Based on the OSMF and the doodle polls, it seems that the license change is moving forward, thanks the LWG. But now, the OSMF should speed-up the transition ! We are many contributors that are reluctant to modify or improve existing data because of the threat that many old or minor contributions will disappear - not because people will reject the new license but more because they will not reply to the Odbl change request (especially those who didn't edit anything since month or years, e.g. the coastlines). So, what I would like to know is: - the new time schedule for the licence change - is there any plan or coordination to translate the Odbl before you ask the dual-licence to newcomers ? Is it possible to translate the license without the support of legal-vocabulary experts ? Pieren Result of the crappy poll, the 10th Feb: 439 participants (10 entries removed for double or empty votes). 31% "yes, I will accept the new license Odbl" 44% "yes and consider all my data Public domain (no restrictions)" 3% "no, I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked" 10% "no, I will not accept the new license Odbl and wants to continue with the CC-BY-SA2.0 license" 12% "I don't know yet because I don't understand the new license or the possible consequences" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Here is an update from the License Working Group. We feel we've reached a reasonable community consensus to move forward carefully based on results from the OSMF member vote and from the general community poll (below). At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM and OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been slightly modified and the latest version can be seen here http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms . If any one is interested in what the changes are and why, I'll be writing to the legal-talk list shortly. We expect to get this finally reviewed and ready in the next few days. The next step is introduce "dual licensing" for *new* OpenStreetMap contributors as soon as possible. When they register, they will be asked to license their contributions under both CC-BY-SA and ODbL until and when the ODbL is finally in place. This is an important step as it has always been the most urgent step step in the process ... the longer we leave it, the more contributors we have to be contacted. Follow ups to legal-talk please! Mike The OSMF member vote has been closed, and the results from 270 members polled are: Approved the process:132 Did not approve the process: 16 Didn't vote: 122 alternatively, Approval rate: 89% Turnout rate: 55% You can see full results, including a survey of member's opinions for future direction at: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/OSMF_member_vote_results The open poll on on general community reaction is available here and is still open if you want to add your view: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
