Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 23 February 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> - review of the existing OSM community guidelines related to the ODbL
> - ODbL review with an eye to a 1.1 release (gather points for
> clarification and similar)
> - review CC-BY 4.0 compatibility as an input licence to the ODbL
> licensed databases
> - sub-licensing in the ODbL and CC licences
> - a treaty on the "can I be sued by an OSM contributor" issue
> - grace periods in the CC and ODbL licences

These are very good topics i think - not only because they are highly 
relevant for the OSM community but also since they are at the same time 
suited for a student to work on.

> Naturally OSM-US is completely free to discuss whatever it wants with
> whomever it wants, but that works the other way around too.

Indeed - and in this context it is hairy if OSM-US implies relevance of 
the results for the OSMF and the global OSM community - as done for 
example in the final paragraph of [1]:

"Your final analysis should take the form of an options memo to the OSMF 
License Working Group and OSMF Board with a recommendation as to the 
best approach or approaches."

At best this is a recipe for students/law school for making a fool of 
themselves (if i was a teacher at that law school i'd kick such project 
out for being highly unsuited for student work) and an obstacle in 
future open discourse of the OSM community (see Frederiks remarks 
regarding 'what we want').

At worst it is a blatant attempt to influence future discourse by 
implying whatever options suggested are actually in any way more 
relevant than other possibilities.

But as you said ultimately this is of course between OSM-US and that law 
school - and they are also free to make recommendations to whoever they 
want to.

[1] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q89ImYlJd4Jm1E9JYL5lpcLGiZDbvYpYg5Vazdg_A2w/edit

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

[Simon Poole]

Am 22.02.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Mike N:
> On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote:
>> Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I
>> wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap
>> US but some company whose name starts with Map*
>
>  Speaking as an OSM US participant and not affiliated with any
> company, I would find it interesting if OSM would become more than an
> academic curiosity in the US.  That is, to power more services than
> Craigslist.
Well, given that there are US companies to which Craigslist is a spec of
dust in the Atlantic in comparison, that have no issues using OSM
outside of the US, your desire is clearly is not a legal question, but
far more a quality issue that only the US OSM community can address and
resolve.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

[Simon Poole]

There is, naturally, a longish story before this, not really necessary,
drama.

In August last year Kate hat contact with a law school about potential
input from a seminar or similar format on topics in the context of
licensing. While there was a fair amount of discussion and some
suggestions with respect to potential suitable topics, in the end it
fizzled out and nothing actually happened.

Very early this year (aka before we (LWG and myself) were back from the
holiday season) another similar opportunity presented itself and in the
rush to secure the contact a number of "DO NOT PRESS, THIS WILL CAUSE
CONFLAGRATION" buttons were pressed, including one labelled "geocoding".

The resulting blaze was however contained reasonably fast and the
position of the LWG remains the same as before, that there is nothing to
be said against input in such a form as long as it is clear that we are
not seeking formal legal advice with all its associated consequences.
Obviously contentious high-profile topics probably are not the best
selection for student work and should only be farmed out after due
consideration.

If anybody wants to be truly bored, this is some of the bullet-point
only topics that I've suggested:

- review of the existing OSM community guidelines related to the ODbL
- ODbL review with an eye to a 1.1 release (gather points for
clarification and similar)
- review CC-BY 4.0 compatibility as an input licence to the ODbL
licensed databases
- sub-licensing in the ODbL and CC licences
- a treaty on the "can I be sued by an OSM contributor" issue
- grace periods in the CC and ODbL licences

Naturally OSM-US is completely free to discuss whatever it wants with
whomever it wants, but that works the other way around too.

Simon


Am 22.02.2016 um 10:38 schrieb Simone Cortesi:
> Hi,
> Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I
> wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap
> US but some company whose name starts with Map*
>
> This should be disclosed.
>
> The Foundation doesn't need a new licence for our data.
>
> 1+ for Mr. Henk.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Henk Hoff  
> wrote:
>> It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for
>> this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the
>> Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be).
>>
>>
>>
>> This discussion should be led on Foundation level. I assume the Board is
>> taking action to get this issue resolved.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Henk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Van: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr]
>> Verzonden: zaterdag 20 februari 2016 15:05
>> Aan: Richard Weait 
>> CC:  ;
>> talk@openstreetmap.org Talk ; talk-us
>> 
>> Onderwerp: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, and again, and again... and each time from the US if I'm not wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-02-18 23:35 GMT+01:00 Richard Weait :
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:
>>> Any license change process, or anything remotely close to it, should be
>>> open and transparent. It should involve the community from the start and any
>>> company that wants to participate too.
>> I'm aligned with that.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>>
>>
>> ___
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

[Mike N]

On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote:

Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I
wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap
US but some company whose name starts with Map*


 Speaking as an OSM US participant and not affiliated with any company, 
I would find it interesting if OSM would become more than an academic 
curiosity in the US.  That is, to power more services than Craigslist.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

[Simone Cortesi]

Hi,
Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I
wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap
US but some company whose name starts with Map*

This should be disclosed.

The Foundation doesn't need a new licence for our data.

1+ for Mr. Henk.


On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Henk Hoff  wrote:
> It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for
> this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the
> Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be).
>
>
>
> This discussion should be led on Foundation level. I assume the Board is
> taking action to get this issue resolved.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Henk
>
>
>
>
>
> Van: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr]
> Verzonden: zaterdag 20 februari 2016 15:05
> Aan: Richard Weait 
> CC:  ;
> talk@openstreetmap.org Talk ; talk-us
> 
> Onderwerp: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] license changes
>
>
>
> Again, and again, and again... and each time from the US if I'm not wrong.
>
>
>
> 2016-02-18 23:35 GMT+01:00 Richard Weait :
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:
>> Any license change process, or anything remotely close to it, should be
>> open and transparent. It should involve the community from the start and any
>> company that wants to participate too.
>
> I'm aligned with that.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>



-- 
-S

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-02-21 22:23 GMT+01:00 Henk Hoff :

> It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for
> this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the
> Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be).
>
>
>
> This discussion should be led on Foundation level. I assume the Board is
> taking action to get this issue resolved.
>


+1

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk