Re: [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Ian Haylock wrote: Surely if a person releases something under PD, he/she is giving up all rights to that information, be it software, data, etc. So what's to stop OSM doing what they want with the data. For instance if the whole of the OSM database was public domain. A private company could write some mapping software that uses OSM data, And there would be nothing to stop them selling this software and data together. Or have I got this PD thing all wrong ? Brief recap: Some OSM users would be very happy with this. Others insist on a share-alike provision, as there is in the current licence. Reconciling the two is pretty much impossible, and neither side is going to convince the other. What we're discussing is adopting a better licence, not changing the whole approach in this way. There have also been suggestions that individual users could choose to formally declare their edits to be public domain, facilitating unrestricted use of their data. That is also worth discussing. Big philosophical questions about which is better probably aren't worth it. We've been there a thousand times before and we're not going to change anyone's mind. Please keep the discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED], not talk@openstreetmap.org - thanks. :) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
On 4 Feb 2008, at 13:46, David Earl wrote: how do we avoid the situation where e.g. someone who disagrees the new license has run a bot over all of Cambridge to tweak things (as has indeed happened to many of the ways) or who has 'tidied up' bits of my mapping so all my surveying is now labelled with their name. Does all of my mapping of Cambridge get deleted because someone has later modified my work in a trivial way? (Conversely, can I just select a big area, and add a new tag to transfer the data to my name and cause someone who doesn't agree the new license to be retained?) It would have to be a clean chain of all editors agreeing, and the last timewise editor to disagree is the edit (and those thereafter) that would be thrown away. This sounds like a nightmare: I could lose weeks of work because someone who fails to reply played with Potlatch once for a few minutes and then vanished. You have a better idea? :-) Ultimately, I think if we get consensus the vast majority of people will be happy to switch. have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Hi, This sounds like a nightmare: I could lose weeks of work because someone who fails to reply played with Potlatch once for a few minutes and then vanished. You have a better idea? :-) Well if push comes to shove then in order to have a say about an element in our database, you would have to have made a contribution that earns you a copyright. I assume there are contributions too trivial for that. Just being listed in our history database as someone who has modified a way is probably not enough for having a copyright (and the whole CC-BY-SA idea is based on people having copyright). A trivial example of this is that it is currently possible to be recorded as having edited a way even if you just upload the same version again (in JOSM, select multiple objects of which some have a certain tag and some not; change the different in the property editor to a certain value, and you are recorded as having changed all of the selected objects even if only some of them changed). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Stage 3 - Email all OSM users who have contributed data with the option of re-licensing their data 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) Then keep this preference. People wanting a PD map can then quite legitimately extract the PD subset of data. We'll have to create the tool for extraction by license choice anyway. Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 12:31 +, Tom Evans wrote: Stage 3 - Email all OSM users who have contributed data with the option of re-licensing their data 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) Then keep this preference. People wanting a PD map can then quite legitimately extract the PD subset of data. We'll have to create the tool for extraction by license choice anyway. What happens if a non-PD editor edits PD data? Does it become non-PD or does it stay PD? What if the editor doesn't want their edits to be PD? This is why we need one licence for everyone. I'm happy for my GPXs to be PD, but not my edits. -- Bruce Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
