Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > What license would our data be under? Would it > be under no license because it's factual data that cannot be > copyrighted? Grant wrote: > OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information > License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the > individual contributions from individual data contributors, and any > aggregation covered by the ODbL. andrzej again: > In this case couldn't we just keep claiming that the > data is under CC-BY-SA and remain compatible with other projects (even > if this doesn't make a difference legally in most countries, because > it's factual data) Claiming to have a copyright where you know you have none is considered very bad style, something that evil companies do, or Scientology. 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] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
2009/2/27 Philipp Klaus Krause : > It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible "share-alike" > licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works > derived from more than one already existing free work. > > While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or > BSD-like license, I would have at least hoped for some explicit > conversion clauses, e.g. allowing to use the data under CC-SA, GFDL or GPL. If I undestand correctly, such a clause would also let us just ask people to license their contributions under ODbL instead of "temporarily dual-license under ODbL and CC-BY-SA". What I don't understand very clearly (and would appreciate a clarification) is the license says that ODbL applies to the database and not to the data in it, and that data in one databse can be covered by multiple licenses. What license would our data be under? Would it be under no license because it's factual data that cannot be copyrighted? In this case couldn't we just keep claiming that the data is under CC-BY-SA and remain compatible with other projects (even if this doesn't make a difference legally in most countries, because it's factual data) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible "share-alike" > licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works > derived from more than one already existing free work. > > While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or > BSD-like license, I would have at least hoped for some explicit > conversion clauses, e.g. allowing to use the data under CC-SA, GFDL or GPL. None of those licences handle data, though, they handle copyright. That is the motivation for an open *database* licence. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible "share-alike" licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works derived from more than one already existing free work. While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or BSD-like license, I would have at least hoped for some explicit conversion clauses, e.g. allowing to use the data under CC-SA, GFDL or GPL. Philipp ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Add this question/point to the wiki! - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Given that the purpose of this license is to allow use, copying, modifying, and redistribution, why is it phrased as only allowing you to Use the database, and then redefining Use in a different section to mean copying, modifying, and redistribution? Shouldn't the first paragraph of S3.1 be readable by itself without having to go search for definitions in order to extract the plain-language meaning of the text? (I'm ignoring here the presence of 'examples' in S3.1, since examples are usually used for illustration not definition) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:40, OJ W wrote: > 1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to > find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did > the upload of their data just have to tick "I agree" on their behalf > when they next log-in after the change? > > 2: For imported datasets where we checked compatibility with our old > license before import, will they be reviewed for compatibility with > the new license? > I am not in a position to answer these questions but I have added them to the Open Issues page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues ). Regards, Peter > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:05, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Grant Slater writes: > >> >> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the >> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the >> new >> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). > > I am sure that this is going to be fun. Legal adviser makes a fine > new start for > a never ending PD-Share alike or GPL style/LGPL style debate with > comments like > this on the wiki use cases page: > > "My goal as a producer of Free (as in freedom) works is to enable (and > encourage) others to create new and innovative Free works based on > mine, so that > the catalogue of Free works available to the world is growingly > enriched by new > contributors. This wealth of new works is my reward for contributing > in the > first place. I don't understand why anybody would be allowed to pick > random > pieces of Free works, produce something new with it, and not share > it back. If > they have a problem with sharing back to the community, they should > just not use > a Free work in the first place, get their data elsewhere and > possibly pay for > it. --Pshunter 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)" > I think we are going to need some carefully management of the Use Case page over the review period. Should we use the talk page to discuss issues with individual use cases? or should the main use-case page be used? or should this list be used?! Personally I would prefer the Use Case talk page to have a heading for each Use Case and have the main Use Case page only containing the current proposed text. If people don't object this this then I will create entries for each Use Case on the discussion page and move the existing comments from the front to the discussion page. My reason for using the wiki approach is that the discussions for each Use Case can happen in parallel without elements of the discussion getting lost over time the way they do on a list, or dissipate into the normal free/sa pit of despair! With reference to Pshunter's comments I am not clear what his actual point it, but I will pick that up on the talk page if people agree with the approach. Regards, Peter > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did the upload of their data just have to tick "I agree" on their behalf when they next log-in after the change? 2: For imported datasets where we checked compatibility with our old license before import, will they be reviewed for compatibility with the new license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Grant Slater writes: > > The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the > completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new > proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). I am sure that this is going to be fun. Legal adviser makes a fine new start for a never ending PD-Share alike or GPL style/LGPL style debate with comments like this on the wiki use cases page: "My goal as a producer of Free (as in freedom) works is to enable (and encourage) others to create new and innovative Free works based on mine, so that the catalogue of Free works available to the world is growingly enriched by new contributors. This wealth of new works is my reward for contributing in the first place. I don't understand why anybody would be allowed to pick random pieces of Free works, produce something new with it, and not share it back. If they have a problem with sharing back to the community, they should just not use a Free work in the first place, get their data elsewhere and possibly pay for it. --Pshunter 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On 27 Feb 2009, at 12:26, Mike Collinson wrote: > The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the > wiki history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that > review has been made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then > no edits for a month). I've grabbed a copy of that page and will > insert the review comments into that as suggested. Give me till Sat. Given that the Use Cases will be reviewed again in the consultation phase I think it is fair to take a slight guess at that date the review happened. On consideration, do leave the comments you have added to the page on there. I would like to spend some time seeing if we can keep the version that was consulted on and the legal response on the page in a quoteblock, and then also have the current proposed Use Case wording that can be tweeked. None of that stops it being a good idea to have a read-only pdf of the Use Cases as presented to the lawyers and their comments. Regards, Peter > > > Mike > > At 12:52 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote: > >> On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote: >> >>> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce >>> the >>> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the >>> new >>> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). >>> >> >> Thank you for your work to date; clearly a lot of work has gone into >> this. >> >> We will now pass this information to our own legal people for review. >> We will publish their response to the community as soon as it is >> available. If we have any interim questions we will post those to the >> list as well. >> >> I have a question about how we manage the Use Cases wiki page during >> the consultation phase... The legal people have responded to one set >> of Use Cases (excellent news indeed), however the wiki can be changed >> at any time so the legal view will become out-of-date as the Use Case >> text is updated. >> >> Can I suggest that a separate .pdf document is published which >> contains the Use Case version that was actually consulted on and the >> response from the legal people to that version? I suggest that we >> then >> revert the Use Case wiki page to the version prior to the legal >> comment being added and that we then update the text for the Use >> Cases >> in response to this feedback we have received. >> >> We should then possibly seek a further review of any Use Cases where >> the text has been altered (the WIki 'diff' feature will allow us to >> identify which Use Cases have updated between the date that the legal >> people took their initial version and the current version). >> >> I also suggest that we delete the ' A brief for the proposed SA >> licence ' section of the Use Case page as that is now historical, it >> may not actually reflect the license and is a distraction (note >> that I >> was the main author of it, so no one should be offended by doing >> that!). >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Peter Miller >> ITO World Ltd >> >> >> ___ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the wiki history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that review has been made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then no edits for a month). I've grabbed a copy of that page and will insert the review comments into that as suggested. Give me till Sat. Mike At 12:52 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote: >On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote: > >> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the >> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the >> new >> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). >> > >Thank you for your work to date; clearly a lot of work has gone into >this. > >We will now pass this information to our own legal people for review. >We will publish their response to the community as soon as it is >available. If we have any interim questions we will post those to the >list as well. > >I have a question about how we manage the Use Cases wiki page during >the consultation phase... The legal people have responded to one set >of Use Cases (excellent news indeed), however the wiki can be changed >at any time so the legal view will become out-of-date as the Use Case >text is updated. > >Can I suggest that a separate .pdf document is published which >contains the Use Case version that was actually consulted on and the >response from the legal people to that version? I suggest that we then >revert the Use Case wiki page to the version prior to the legal >comment being added and that we then update the text for the Use Cases >in response to this feedback we have received. > >We should then possibly seek a further review of any Use Cases where >the text has been altered (the WIki 'diff' feature will allow us to >identify which Use Cases have updated between the date that the legal >people took their initial version and the current version). > >I also suggest that we delete the ' A brief for the proposed SA >licence ' section of the Use Case page as that is now historical, it >may not actually reflect the license and is a distraction (note that I >was the main author of it, so no one should be offended by doing that!). > > >Regards, > > > >Peter Miller >ITO World Ltd > > >___ >legal-talk mailing list >legal-t...@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Grant Slater wrote: > The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the > completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new > proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). > > The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and > supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap's > expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license > authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and > process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data > Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community > join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure > that the license is the best possible license for us. > > The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike > provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far > more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works > of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer > when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered. > > The license is now available at > http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and you are welcome to > make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list > also at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ up until 20th > March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and > comments should be made there as part of that process. > > Attached below is our proposed adoption plan and the latest will be at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan > . This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on the > discussion page for the plan: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Pl >an . > In summary, we'd like to give time for final license comments to be > absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the > current version of the new license to the community for adoption and > then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait > until the final version before formally reviewing the license. > > Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed Use Cases > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases and his > responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the > use of the Factual Information License > http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual > contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation > covered by the ODbL. > > There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on. > If you would like to help, please give input at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues > > For instance: Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license? > The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives? > And implementation What Ifs ... for example, what if the license is not > accepted? > > Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group > looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the > process. > > -- > All dates approximate for review. > > License Plan > > 27th February: > * This draft adoption plan made public to legal and talk list > with the draft license text made available by the Open Data Commons > (with facility for comments back) . Local contacts asked to assist in > passing on the message, and subsequent announcements. > > 2nd March: > * Working group meeting. Finalise implementation plan following > review of plan comments; What If scenario planning. > > 12th March: > * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received > to date. > > 20th March: > *End of ODbL comment period. > > 28 March: > *ODbL 1.0 is expected to be released by Open Data Commons at The > Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) London event. > > 31st March: > * OSMF Board endorses licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd > January) to vote (1 week) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the > community for adoption. > > What follows is based on a positive response from the OSMF members... > > + 1 week: > * Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have > set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up > page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People > who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and > are emailed a notice. > * Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. > Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page > explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a > requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop > people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to > license your chan
