Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 11:14, David Murn wrote: > Once all the licence issues are resolved and we know whether projects > will be forked or our data removed, then Ill start dumping all my edits > back in. Ive also tried working on parts of New Zealand, but have come > up against a brick wall as there is an import partially in progress > (almost all roads, and lots of other POI bits).. but will not be > completed until the licence is resolved, so basically an entire > countries mapping is on-hold. Once the issues are resolved, I have no > doubt there are lots of mappers in my position who have lots of new data > to upload. hi david, i'm an NZ mapper, and involved with the LINZ import process. the line we are going with around the import is to encourage mappers to do their own mapping anyway - the LINZ import will be some time, plus there are mistakes in the data which will need correcting manually, and there is greater value in individuals collecting data than relying on the government. so, map away - your work will not be deleted, we will work round it. if you'd like to know more, join us on the nzopengis group - https://groups.google.com/group/nzopengis -- robin http://tangleball.org.nz/ - Auckland's Creative Space http://bumblepuppy.org/blog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > Partially a rhetorical question... What would the project do if > someone uploaded data to OSM and then said they had not agreed to > contributing the data under CC-BY-SA? In case you're misinterpreting my request: I want future edits to be subject to the same terms that I was editing under before ticking the CT flag. I'm not disputing that edits over the last few months are subject to the new CTs, though I'd be a lot happier if we acknowledged that I made a mistake, and pretended it never happened. (To answer your question: it would depend a lot on the circumstances. In some cases, you just remove their data and carry on. In others, you leave their data in, and carry on. I don't think the attitude of "well you licensed it open, so it's ours now forever more!" -- which I have occasionally elsewhere -- is helpful or respectful. I would also reiterate that constantly reminding users of what licence they are contributing under reduces the chance of this happening, and weakens their claim if it does.) > Out of interest here is the history of project's contributing terms... > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History > > PS: Your email to LWG was received, but we have not yet had a chance > to discuss and respond. We meet again next Tuesday. Thanks, I wasn't expecting an instant response. It's a weird situation. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 10:58, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with >> the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you >> can indicate your preference right now. >> >> When we are at the mandatory phase, then and only then will the >> agreement have a decline button. > > With respect, the logic here seems a bit twisted. And, speaking as the > first victim of accidental accession, it doesn't feel very "voluntary" > if I can't unset my CT flag. It feels more like a trap which I > inadvertently stumbled into. > Steve, Partially a rhetorical question... What would the project do if someone uploaded data to OSM and then said they had not agreed to contributing the data under CC-BY-SA? Out of interest here is the history of project's contributing terms... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History PS: Your email to LWG was received, but we have not yet had a chance to discuss and respond. We meet again next Tuesday. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:45:14 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I've decided to just ignore the CTs for now, and continue to operate > under CC BY-SA. Others are doing this to, and you could too, assuming > you haven't agreed to the CTs and you don't actually plan to sit > around after the complete license transition. I'm yet to hear from > anyone in my local community who is vocal against this practice so I'm > not inclined to stop. Exactly. If you are not forced to upload under the new CTs (e.g. your account was created before they were mandatory for new users and you have not voluntary agreed to them) there is no harm in continuing to upload your data (unless you have a problem with CC-BY-SA, of course). As has been stated numerous times there will be a last CC-BY-SA planet file with all data before the data is relicensed. Your data won't be lost if you don't agree to the new CTs. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with > the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you > can indicate your preference right now. > > When we are at the mandatory phase, then and only then will the > agreement have a decline button. With respect, the logic here seems a bit twisted. And, speaking as the first victim of accidental accession, it doesn't feel very "voluntary" if I can't unset my CT flag. It feels more like a trap which I inadvertently stumbled into. And I must point out for the millionth time: the view that the CTs only represent some possible change in the future is simply wrong. There are terms in there that are very different from the previous terms, and affect how data is licensed *right now*. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn wrote: > Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im > doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with > my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only > making minor edits live, but for larger edits Im still doing my mapping > but storing my edits in a collection of .osm files. > Once all the licence issues are resolved and we know whether projects > will be forked or our data removed, then Ill start dumping all my edits > back in. Ive also tried working on parts of New Zealand, but have come > up against a brick wall as there is an import partially in progress > (almost all roads, and lots of other POI bits).. but will not be > completed until the licence is resolved, so basically an entire > countries mapping is on-hold. Once the issues are resolved, I have no > doubt there are lots of mappers in my position who have lots of new data > to upload. I don't think that's such a great idea, because someone else may end up making that change for you (then there was wasted effort on your part), or more likely you will face conflicts when uploading because the data has changed so much since then. I've decided to just ignore the CTs for now, and continue to operate under CC BY-SA. Others are doing this to, and you could too, assuming you haven't agreed to the CTs and you don't actually plan to sit around after the complete license transition. I'm yet to hear from anyone in my local community who is vocal against this practice so I'm not inclined to stop. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > The usual sort of click-through 'agreement' has two buttons, one for > positive, and one for negative. Whether a click-through agreement with > two buttons for positive and none for negative can be enforced anywhere > is not known. This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you can indicate your preference right now. When we are at the mandatory phase, then and only then will the agreement have a decline button. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:34:59 + Simon Ward wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > > Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you > > for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. > > Firstly, it’s not clear that click through agreements are valid in the > UK. They might be in the US, but US != everywhere. > > Secondly, I think the question was more “what evidence do you have to > say I agreed to this” than “I’ve clicked this, but I don’t think it’s > valid”. > > Simon The usual sort of click-through 'agreement' has two buttons, one for positive, and one for negative. Whether a click-through agreement with two buttons for positive and none for negative can be enforced anywhere is not known. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
I used to create government procurements, big messy ones where sales guys would hit the prime minister's office to protest and get fired fifteen minutes after a debriefing when they lost. When dealing with potential problems from egos I always found it very helpful to build a list of requirements that were linked to business requirements first. At the moment I couldn't do that for OSM because I'm not certain what we are trying to do. Are we just having a social gathering on a Sunday afternoon for a walk or cycle with our GPS devices or are we building maps that will be useful to people? Which is most important? Because it affects what business we are in and I suspect we are in two main camps trying to do different things and until we can agree what we are trying to do trying to make decisions about the license issue is irrelevant. Cheerio John I don't know > how to have constructive discussions on the topic though - most seem > to devolve fairly rapidly. > > Steve > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you > for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. Firstly, it’s not clear that click through agreements are valid in the UK. They might be in the US, but US != everywhere. Secondly, I think the question was more “what evidence do you have to say I agreed to this” than “I’ve clicked this, but I don’t think it’s valid”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn wrote: > Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im > doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with > my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only > making minor edits live, but for larger edits Im still doing my mapping > but storing my edits in a collection of .osm files. Sure, that will work for some people. Not me - I want the instant gratification of seeing my edits live. Btw rather than everyone just waiting for the licence issues to resolve themselves, the LWG is apparently open to people helping directly. Perhaps by drafting new versions of the CTs. I don't know how to have constructive discussions on the topic though - most seem to devolve fairly rapidly. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:31 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account > (stevage1), and unset the flag on that account? Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only making minor edits live, but for larger edits Im still doing my mapping but storing my edits in a collection of .osm files. Once all the licence issues are resolved and we know whether projects will be forked or our data removed, then Ill start dumping all my edits back in. Ive also tried working on parts of New Zealand, but have come up against a brick wall as there is an import partially in progress (almost all roads, and lots of other POI bits).. but will not be completed until the licence is resolved, so basically an entire countries mapping is on-hold. Once the issues are resolved, I have no doubt there are lots of mappers in my position who have lots of new data to upload. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 7 December 2010 15:24, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 12/07/2010 12:43 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> The LWG are the people to talk to about this. > > And if they have any confidence in their own work they will certainly not > create new accounts with the CT flag unset. Provided they have no confidence that they'll eventually come up with a reasonable ct document that the users can then accept, *or* they (lwg) prefer to harm the map data by not letting people contribute while they make up their mind. (assuming other factors than map data don't count) Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:43:12 + Tom Hughes wrote: > I'm in the position where I have the ability to do both those things > certainly but I wouldn't want to do so. > > The LWG are the people to talk to about this. I would not suggest LWG. They are a committee of the Board. Apply to the OSMF Board. If the OSMF Board does not heed your point, they will have inappropriately licensed material in their ODBl map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Hi, On 12/07/2010 12:43 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account (stevage1), and unset the flag on that account? I'm in the position where I have the ability to do both those things certainly but I wouldn't want to do so. The LWG are the people to talk to about this. And if they have any confidence in their own work they will certainly not create new accounts with the CT flag unset. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 07/12/10 11:31, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> This is really a policy issue I think. > > I've replied to everything else on the legal list, but to get back to > the original issue: you seem to be in a position to change the flag on > my account, but need authorisation from someone. Who is authorised to > make this decision? > > Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account > (stevage1), and unset the flag on that account? I'm in the position where I have the ability to do both those things certainly but I wouldn't want to do so. The LWG are the people to talk to about this. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > This is really a policy issue I think. I've replied to everything else on the legal list, but to get back to the original issue: you seem to be in a position to change the flag on my account, but need authorisation from someone. Who is authorised to make this decision? Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account (stevage1), and unset the flag on that account? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
If the OSMF won't uncheck your acceptance of the CT's, then I think they should at least hold of damaging the database by removing your edits until after this proposed change to ODbL. Otherwise if people insist and actually start removing this data, its time for the CC BY-SA forks to kick in. I just hope all the CC BY-SA supporters can get together and make the switch as smoothly as possible. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi, > So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the > new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and > obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible > with Nearmap. Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set, > nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about > the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're > operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.) > > So: > 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) > 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set? > > And for bonus points: > 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think > the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the > page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart), > but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that > would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very > compelling. > > Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account? > > From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any > nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT > are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account. > Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag. > > Steve > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:46:21 +0100 andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 6 December 2010 23:23, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > >> >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. > >> > > >> > What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this > >> > question in relation to data in the future, not the present. > >> > >> It's incompatible even at present. > > > > could you please explain this reasoning? > > The assumption (from Nearmap's terms of use) is that the results of > tracing the imagery become CC-By-SA. CC-By-SA is incompatible with > the license you grant to the OSMF when you accept the new CT, I > thought that was a generally accepted interpretation? I mean > regardless of what OSMF does with the data now or in the future. > > Again this belongs on the other list but the misleading statement was > made here. > > Cheers I disagree that the statement is misleading. SteveB is a long standing contributor. He has used Yahoo! and NearMap and also ground survey. His contributions precede the arrival of the page which invited persons to change to the new CTs. That may not have been stated clearly in the subsequent mails, but was noted in SteveB's original mail. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've > given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke > that license. > > This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a > program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". Well, more like the moral/legal equivalent of seeing your name on a list of people who offered up a program under the GPL and then saying "Huh? I don't remember ever doing that. WTF?" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 6 December 2010 23:23, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: >> >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. >> > >> > What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this >> > question in relation to data in the future, not the present. >> >> It's incompatible even at present. > > could you please explain this reasoning? The assumption (from Nearmap's terms of use) is that the results of tracing the imagery become CC-By-SA. CC-By-SA is incompatible with the license you grant to the OSMF when you accept the new CT, I thought that was a generally accepted interpretation? I mean regardless of what OSMF does with the data now or in the future. Again this belongs on the other list but the misleading statement was made here. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:45:00 +0100 andrzej zaborowski wrote: > >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. > > > > What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this > > question in relation to data in the future, not the present. > > It's incompatible even at present. could you please explain this reasoning? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 6 December 2010 20:44, David Murn wrote: > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote: >> This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless: >> >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> > Hi, >> > So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the >> > new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and >> > obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible >> > with Nearmap. >> >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. > > What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this > question in relation to data in the future, not the present. It's incompatible even at present. > >> You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the >> work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover. > > What happens at switchover though? Does the work that he unwittingly > contributed (but he now wishes to revoke, having become aware of his > violation) get switched? > > If I was to put a tag into the database, which contained copyright > information, and I wasnt aware it was copyrighted, should I not have the > right to ask for the removal of that information? Does the OSMF need a > DMCA statement from anyone who has accidently contributed invalid data, > which they refuse to remove. I'm afraid the answer is you can delete the data yourself in that situation. So you actually have the right for the removal, but the easiest way to do that is to delete the data yourself, and if for some reason you don't want to do that or can't, then the Data Working Group normally takes care of it if they become aware of the problem. > > I do agree that it would be good to have some indication on the main > screen, as to whether you have accepted the licence or not. > > >> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've >> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke >> that license. > > ... because he has subsequently found out that he has no legal right to > give that data to OSMF, and has infact commited an offence himself. The > data that he contributed, that he's asking them to revoke, was invalid > in the first place. > > It does raise one interesting question though (which I believe SHOULD be > on legal-talk but Ill ask here since it fits with the rest of the > thread). If a user becomes aware they have contributed data in this > situation, and asks OSMF to remove the data or at least to not relicence > the data, and OSMF doesnt remove or does relicence, does the fact the > user asked for the data to be removed, remove any liability from the > user for the violation? Does this put OSMF in a liable position, by > refusing to remove data that it knows is in breach of copyright and its > own terms? I guess it'd be up to Steve or the DWG to remove it even though the contributions may be compatible with some future version of the CT, but currently they're not and there's no way to unset the flag and no way to register a new account with original contributor terms :( Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:15 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski: > > The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project. > > The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people > who runs this project :-) If the OSMF board abandoned OSM, maybe a dozen people would notice the difference. If the contributors abandoned OSM, well, the outcome would be obvious. Before this whole licence thing blew up, how many people even knew about OSMF? If things were done right, and this issue hadnt dragged on for 3 years, I suspect many of us possibly wouldnt have even heard of OSMF, and would have simply continued contributing data. The only action I can see the foundation has done in recent history, is to disenfranchise users by dragging legalities out for far too long. Sure, they might say theyve 'made progress' or 'formed working groups' or whatever, but Im seeing very little progress and very little work from the groups. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:41:05 -0500 Richard Weait wrote: > We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that > shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and > flag those changesets that are incompatible individually. The bad > ones won't be brought forward but your survey-based, > direct-observation contributions will continue. Many other benefits > to this approach, but that's a discussion for another list. this was mentioned on talk-au and the impracticality of marking changesets was noted. If work has a source tag then this is easy for a particular node or way, but subject to vandalism by others. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski: The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project. The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people who runs this project :-) Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Hi, > > So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the > > new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and > > obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible > > with Nearmap. > > If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this question in relation to data in the future, not the present. > You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the > work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover. What happens at switchover though? Does the work that he unwittingly contributed (but he now wishes to revoke, having become aware of his violation) get switched? If I was to put a tag into the database, which contained copyright information, and I wasnt aware it was copyrighted, should I not have the right to ask for the removal of that information? Does the OSMF need a DMCA statement from anyone who has accidently contributed invalid data, which they refuse to remove. I do agree that it would be good to have some indication on the main screen, as to whether you have accepted the licence or not. > The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've > given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke > that license. ... because he has subsequently found out that he has no legal right to give that data to OSMF, and has infact commited an offence himself. The data that he contributed, that he's asking them to revoke, was invalid in the first place. It does raise one interesting question though (which I believe SHOULD be on legal-talk but Ill ask here since it fits with the rest of the thread). If a user becomes aware they have contributed data in this situation, and asks OSMF to remove the data or at least to not relicence the data, and OSMF doesnt remove or does relicence, does the fact the user asked for the data to be removed, remove any liability from the user for the violation? Does this put OSMF in a liable position, by refusing to remove data that it knows is in breach of copyright and its own terms? What would happen if a user was tracing from google instead of nearmap, and had accepted the CTs, would OSMF also refuse to change the flag, and simply relicence the google-traced data along with everything else? > This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a > program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". Not quite, this would be like someone distributing a GPL program but inadvertantly including firmware, and then after realising the firmware was there, deciding the licence has to be changed, or even saying 'You can have this program under GPL, but not this part which is unfortunately copyrighted to someone else'. > My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's > terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately. And the 'illegal' data that has already been contributed, what of it? > > From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any > > nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT > > are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account. > > I don't know anything about Nearmap, buf the data in OSM as of today > is available under the CC-BY-SA license, and your usage is bound to > that. Thats all great for today, but the CTs arent about today, theyre about the future, when there isnt a CC-BY-SA license. > I'm not on the OSMF board, but if I were, I'd say that the dangers of > revoking a license are so high that I'd be extremely hesitant to do > so. I guess it depends if the 'danger' is equal to the danger of having a user inadvertantly contributing large chunks of data which is not legally licenced to be in OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Hi, pec...@gmail.com wrote: License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change data license to any other "free license" (which could be strip "share alike" and "attribution" requirements) what blocks usage. In fact, there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and that's even not working in all countries. I'm sure that if, at any time in the future, the OSM license needs to be changed, it will be into something that works in all countries. We don't know if it will ever be necessary; we don't know what that license might be; we don't even know which countries will be around then and what their legal systems will look like. Think long-term! This is not a clause aimed at next year. I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of "free license", but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. As for the distant future - we don't know who will be in OSM then, what their preferences will be, and wheter you and I will be alive then. I think it is ok to let those who *then* run OSM decide, instead of trying to force onto them what we today think is right. And legal-talk is that way ---> Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
2010/12/6 Serge Wroclawski : > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >> On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: Hi, So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible with Nearmap. >>> >>> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. >> > >> But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible. It's not some >> theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't >> give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes, >> this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this) > > Right; this is an issue with a few people in OSM who've integrated > other datasets under a specific license, rather than either getting > the other organization to make them available under a very permissive > license, or else making the donation to OSM itself. > Serge, which part of "It isn't about license, it is about CT" you don't understand? License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change data license to any other "free license" (which could be strip "share alike" and "attribution" requirements) what blocks usage. In fact, there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and that's even not working in all countries. I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of "free license", but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >>> Hi, >>> So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the >>> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and >>> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible >>> with Nearmap. >> >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. > > But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible. It's not some > theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't > give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes, > this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this) Right; this is an issue with a few people in OSM who've integrated other datasets under a specific license, rather than either getting the other organization to make them available under a very permissive license, or else making the donation to OSM itself. I don't know the specifics of Nearmap but I'm aware of this issue in general. >>> So: >>> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) >> >> Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think >> you should be aware of. >> >> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've >> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke >> that license. >> >> This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a >> program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". > > With regards to what Steve submitted so far, yes, but he should be > able to decide the terms for his new edits. I think that this issue is really more cut and dry. Regarding data he's entered which is licensed by a third party, the third party needs to make the data available to OSM in a way that works with OSM's chosen license model, or else the data needs to be removed from OSM. That doesn't mean Steve needs to be alone; OSM could offer resources to assist this effort. > Or let's discuss the terms and come up with something that satisfies > more people. There is a very vocal group, including you saying that > this is now "the project's terms" in ways that try to sound > authoritative, but 1. these terms are still in flux which you know > about, so what are the actual terms? the 1.0 or the 1.1 or the > upcoming 1.2? Google, Twitter and Facebook, the three largest sites in the English speaking Internet, all have terms which change over time, and so does OSM. And unlike those other organizations, you have direct ability not only to accept or not accept the terms, but also to vote for the organization's leadership, which AFAIK, isn't an option for Google users. > 2. assuming that the project is the community then the > new terms are just the terms of a part of the project and what the > "committee" up there decides doesn't automatically become fact. The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
- Original Message - From: "Serge Wroclawski" To: "Steve Bennett" Cc: "Open Street Map mailing list" Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless: On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: Hi, So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible with Nearmap. If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. Serge, are you sure about the advice you gave above? Last I heard, use of NearMap imagery was incompatible with the CT's, and that position is also stated on the wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap David Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set, nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.) You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover. So: 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think you should be aware of. The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke that license. This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out explicitly in the license itself. My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately. 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set? And for bonus points: 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart), but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very compelling. Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. If it weren't, then every time you agree to any web site or software's terms of service via a single checkbox, then that would be invalid. I notice you're using a Google email address- I'm sure you had to click some terms at some point- same thing. In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the form. Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account? Sure, you could, but all new accounts require accepting the CT before you can begin. From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account. I don't know anything about Nearmap, buf the data in OSM as of today is available under the CC-BY-SA license, and your usage is bound to that. Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag. I'm not on the OSMF board, but if I were, I'd say that the dangers of revoking a license are so high that I'd be extremely hesitant to do so. On the other hand, someone who might have a beef with OSM and doesn't want to accept the CT might set up such a situation to put them in an impossible situation. In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM, regarding rendering. If it was, you seem like a nice guy. Please don't make more trouble for OSM- if you don't like the CT, then just stop contributing. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Hi, >> So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the >> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and >> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible >> with Nearmap. > > If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible. It's not some theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes, this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this) > >> Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set, >> nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about >> the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're >> operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.) > > You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the > work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover. > >> So: >> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) > > Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think > you should be aware of. > > The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've > given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke > that license. > > This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a > program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". With regards to what Steve submitted so far, yes, but he should be able to decide the terms for his new edits. > > Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't > retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out > explicitly in the license itself. > > My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's > terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately. Or let's discuss the terms and come up with something that satisfies more people. There is a very vocal group, including you saying that this is now "the project's terms" in ways that try to sound authoritative, but 1. these terms are still in flux which you know about, so what are the actual terms? the 1.0 or the 1.1 or the upcoming 1.2? 2. assuming that the project is the community then the new terms are just the terms of a part of the project and what the "committee" up there decides doesn't automatically become fact. And telling the other part of the project to go away you're not helping OSM, so in your words "Please don't make more trouble for OSM", you did seem like a nice guy at the SoTM. (which is irrelevant, but that's apparently the way to communicate) Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI. David. PS. Wow, reading all of the emails on this subject over the last year, it is clear that this license issue and the way that it has been handled is obviously the best thing that ever happened to OSM and the OSM community! Personally, I don't have any strong technical reasons to favor either side the debate over the status quo license and the new license and CT, but in observing how this whole debacle has been handled, my gut is definitely against it now. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Hi, >> So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the >> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and >> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible >> with Nearmap. > > >> So: >> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) > > Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think > you should be aware of. > > The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've > given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke > that license. > > This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a > program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". > > Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't > retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out > explicitly in the license itself. > > My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's > terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi, > So, this is awkward. > From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any > nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT > are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account. We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and flag those changesets that are incompatible individually. The bad ones won't be brought forward but your survey-based, direct-observation contributions will continue. Many other benefits to this approach, but that's a discussion for another list. * LWG have been discussing it, but the server team / community will end up implementing it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 6 December 2010 23:55, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Hi, >> So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the >> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and >> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible >> with Nearmap. > > If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. > > In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM, > regarding rendering. If it was, you seem like a nice guy. Please don't > make more trouble for OSM- if you don't like the CT, then just stop > contributing. The problem is by agreeing to the CT Steve has breached his contract with Nearmap, which in turn is a breach of CT terms so legally he had no right to agree to the CTs in the first place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless: On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi, > So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the > new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and > obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible > with Nearmap. If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. > Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set, > nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about > the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're > operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.) You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover. > So: > 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think you should be aware of. The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke that license. This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary". Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out explicitly in the license itself. My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately. > 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set? > > And for bonus points: > 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think > the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the > page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart), > but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that > would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very > compelling. Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. If it weren't, then every time you agree to any web site or software's terms of service via a single checkbox, then that would be invalid. I notice you're using a Google email address- I'm sure you had to click some terms at some point- same thing. In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the form. > Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account? Sure, you could, but all new accounts require accepting the CT before you can begin. > From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any > nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT > are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account. I don't know anything about Nearmap, buf the data in OSM as of today is available under the CC-BY-SA license, and your usage is bound to that. > Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag. I'm not on the OSMF board, but if I were, I'd say that the dangers of revoking a license are so high that I'd be extremely hesitant to do so. On the other hand, someone who might have a beef with OSM and doesn't want to accept the CT might set up such a situation to put them in an impossible situation. In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM, regarding rendering. If it was, you seem like a nice guy. Please don't make more trouble for OSM- if you don't like the CT, then just stop contributing. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 06/12/10 12:09, Steve Bennett wrote: > 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) This is really a policy issue I think. > 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set? 2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC > And for bonus points: > 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think > the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the > page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart), > but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that > would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very > compelling. It's not a bit, it's a timestamp precisely because it does provide better evidence. It also means it can be correlated with the logs, so for example I can tell what IP address you made the change from. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Hi, So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible with Nearmap. Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set, nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.) So: 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage) 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set? And for bonus points: 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart), but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very compelling. Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account? >From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account. Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
