Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
Henk Hoff schrieb: > Besides: some of the open issues are mere general, like > "Who is the licensor?" The answer to that question has quite far-reaching consequences on what the license means in practice. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
Since my name is mentioned twice, it might be good to give some light to statement of the open issues. Frederik Ramm schreef: > > Anyone suggesting to use ODbL 0.9 un-altered would be out of their mind > and thus I assume that nobody does. I have no official OSMF statement on > this in English, but Henk Hoff said on talk-de that OSMF expects the > current known issues to be ironed out in 1.0, and the phrase "fix > problems in 1.1" only applies to such problems that are not known yet. > > During the Telephone Debate the question was raised whether it would be good to bring the 1.0 license up for a vote if we still have serveral important open issues that are unanswered. General feeling within the call (at least that's how I felt it was) was that the open issues as mentioned in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues needs to be answered before we put the 1.0 license up for a vote. This does not necessarily mean that all issues needs to be *resolved* in the 1.0 version. Besides: some of the open issues are mere general, like "Who is the licensor?" Cheers, Henk H. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Mar 16, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 16/03/09 00:26, Russ Nelson wrote: >> 1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than C-By-SA > > Taking ODbL 0.9 instead of 1.0, I think that's at least debatable, Of course. I'm saying that when we adopt ODbL when it's published, we'll do so because it's better than CC-By-SA. And if it isn't, then we'll go looking elsewhere. I'm not saying that ODbL is, a priori, better than CC-By-SA. But I *am* saying that we should adopt a license which is better than CC-By-SA even if the license we adopt is not perfect. > CC-by-SA may have loads of potential issues, They're only potential issues until the shit hits the fan. Then the recriminations about "Why didn't you switch to a different license if you knew the problems were so bad" start. > >> 2) Because it's not clear that we'll understand ODbL any time soon >> well enough to fix any problems. > > So the sales pitch to people concerned is "yeah, the new licence has > known problems and we don't understand it properly so it has unknown > ones too. But it'll all probably get fixed eventually"? No, it's "yeah, the new license is better than the old one." The best is the enemy of the good. Just because we can conceive of a perfect license doesn't mean we can write one. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
2009/3/17 Robert (Jamie) Munro : > Ps. Reaching 100,000 users is extremely bad news for the license. I > think we should stop taking new users unless they agree to make their > contribs licensed under whatever future license the foundation thinks is > appropriate. Or you could use wording like licensed to the foundation > under a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual license for > all purposes in all media" - Right now, every new user that contributes > is a new problem for the relicensing. well, every old user is a potential problem for the relicensing as well. Why should we exclude new contributors or ask them to agree to whatever future license that we can't even name ourselves? I would prefer not to read about users (=contributors) as problems. Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: >> Bear in mind that the new licence won't take away any rights we have >> under CC-BY-SA. The data will (AFAIK) continue as dual licensed in >> future. > > First time I heard this. Of course the *old* planet files will remain > CC-BY-SA and relicensing will only apply to the "OSM trunk" if you will > but I never heard anyone suggest that we'd be CC-BY-SA "as well as" ODbL > in the future. Hmm... That's what I've always assumed would happen, and when I looked at a licensing related page on the wiki the other day, it seemed to be what was implied. Looking back now, I can't seem to find the page that gave me that impression. Robert (Jamie) Munro Ps. Reaching 100,000 users is extremely bad news for the license. I think we should stop taking new users unless they agree to make their contribs licensed under whatever future license the foundation thinks is appropriate. Or you could use wording like licensed to the foundation under a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual license for all purposes in all media" - Right now, every new user that contributes is a new problem for the relicensing. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm/o28ACgkQz+aYVHdncI06bwCcCin8XSC//Cab6MQtH5FxM3z+ r4UAoJvLQRk9ZvLRaIJh7Eg4b2g41M8n =FDI0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
Hi, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > Bear in mind that the new licence won't take away any rights we have > under CC-BY-SA. The data will (AFAIK) continue as dual licensed in > future. First time I heard this. Of course the *old* planet files will remain CC-BY-SA and relicensing will only apply to the "OSM trunk" if you will but I never heard anyone suggest that we'd be CC-BY-SA "as well as" ODbL in the future. 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-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gervase Markham wrote: > On 14/03/09 20:32, Ulf Möller wrote: >> OSFM is trying to get ODbL 1.0 in place as soon as possible and fix >> problems in version 1.1 later on. > > The difficulty with doing that is that people who are approached about > relicensing their data might say "no, because the licence is broken in > ways X, Y and Z which were highlighted by the discussion process." Even > if the reply is "we hope to fix those in 1.1", they might say "well, > come back then, then". So what happens then? Do we remove their data or > don't we? It depends on how the license is broken. If it doesn't allow people to do things that we think they should be able to, then that's no worse that the situation now. If it allows people to "steal" the data in some sense, then yes, people would say no. Bear in mind that the new licence won't take away any rights we have under CC-BY-SA. The data will (AFAIK) continue as dual licensed in future. The worst case scenario is that people get to use the data for more purposes than we intend to allow. These people will stop being able to update their database when version 1.1 of the license comes out. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm+mKoACgkQz+aYVHdncI2aEgCgqDNEe9Ll3Ug+AamU98EXoN1q Lg8AnRHOU4JYHhBITvtfyK2HbExyA1NW =+8so -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Simon Ward wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:26:14PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > >>> why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all? > >>> Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version? > >> > >> 1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than C-By-SA > > > > So far that is one thing that is subject to debate. > > You're changing the subject. Gerv was wondering why we would switch > to a license we know isn't perfect. The answer is : because it's > better. OBVIOUSLY if it's not better, we wouldn't switch to it. > > > >> 2) Because it's not clear that we'll understand ODbL any time soon > >> well enough to fix any problems. > > > > If we don’t understand it we shouldn’t use it. > > > We didn't understand the negative aspects of the CC-By-SA, but we used > *it*. Are you saying that OSM shouldn't have been licensed at all, > because at the time the licensing decision was made, people didn't > understand exactly how it would work? Are arguing that we should then make the same mistake twice? ODbL is more complex than CC-BY-SA in many way (copyright *and* database rights *and* contract law) and it is completely untested. Can you explain why you think the risks justify your haste? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Mar 14, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Ulf Möller wrote: > However, the time between the publication of the license and the vote > will be increased from 3 to 10 days so as to allow legal review of the > license. Thanks for this summary, Ulf. I have generally been staying out of this conversation because I think the license change is necessary, and that the OSMF is trustworthy and is doing a good job. But it also needs to be SEEN as doing a good job, and lengthening the time period is a good idea toward that end. I believe that there will be problems in the 1.0 license, but we won't be able to know them immediately (just like the GPL wasn't well understood for about the first five years of its existence -- go read gnu-misc-discuss archives if you don't believe me). As long as the new license is enough better than the old to justify the effort needed to switch, it's worth switching. > OSMF will try to communicate the purpose of the license change better > with emphasis on the ShareAlike issue. They will try to address the > German, Italian, etc communities better. No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:30:21AM -0700, SteveC wrote: > > On 12 Mar 2009, at 04:52, Simon Ward wrote: > > The Foundation could do more to engage with the community by > > participating more in list discussion. > > With the way you guys treat people, why on Earth should they? Funny, yet I (we?) am one who feels slighted by their general absence. If they don't participate, how can we treat them with the respect they probably deserve? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:21:49AM +, Nick Black wrote: > The purpose of the call on Saturday is to offer an additional channel of > communication around the license - its intended to supplement the mailing > lists and wiki Thanks, that’s what I expected to hear. > What I'd hope would come out of it is a clearer understanding of the process > of the license change and some of the specifics around changing it. Please > see this as the Foundation doing everything we can to open up and engage > with the community. The Foundation could do more to engage with the community by participating more in list discussion. Hey, if the community directly gets answers, it might argue the price of fish a little less. > As for the language and timing, its a bit of a damned if you do, damned if > you don't. Its always 2am somewhere and the fact is that the majority of > people involved with OSM are in the EU. As Andy said, if there's enough > demand we can host calls for other time zones. Well, that’s just it: You’re seeking ways to engage with the community, yet placing the burden on them to represent themselves, asking them to rearrange their schedules to participate in a call at a specific time. That’s not helping members of the community trust the process any more than before. > As always, please let us know any constructive ideas. So far there have > been no constructive suggestions from people who are criticizing the call, > for a better way to run this on this thread. Active participation in the list. Take part in the discussion threads, give your opinions where you have them, answer questions if you have the answers, etc. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:21:01AM +, Rob Myers wrote: > coast of the US for example. But I've been involved in both of two > meetings where decisions arrived at in the morning were reversed in > the evening, and that didn't make the first group very happy at all. I think that, due to the inaccessibility, the phone calls should be rather seeking to hilight issues and answer questions, and not make any decisions as such. I’m assuming someone will be recording minutes, which can then be summarised back to the list and on the wiki, so the community can make the decisions. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
