Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
If you fork the project, and fund the upkeep of new servers, bandwidth, etc, then sure. But even if you could do that, which one would I contribute to? I'm not going to do everything twice... Cheers, Joseph 2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both indefinitely? Brendan ___ 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] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both indefinitely? Because there are things you can do with one that you can't do with the other, and there are things you must do with one and you don't need to do with the other. eg CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such demand. So by following ODbl you break CCbySA. and the law is about black and white not shades of grey. Regards Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au wrote: Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... Why must there be migration to the new licence? mainly because the current license doesn't work. that is; in some jurisdictions it isn't able to enforce the attribution and share-alike features that most people expect. that's not the only reason, and you can find more information here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License Why can't we run both indefinitely? for the same reason that, if your front door is broken and won't lock, you don't just double-lock your back door ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote: CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such demand. ODbL does make such a demand, see: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ (sections 4.2 and 4.3) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
Brendan Morley wrote: Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both indefinitely? A major reason for introducing ODbL is that many believe CC-by-SA to only inadequately protect our data (so that it might be possible in some jurisdictions to use our data without respecting attribution and share-alike requirements). If we dual-license, someone with the intention to take our data can simply pick the weaker license, so this wouldn't help at all. Adopting a dual-licensing scheme would also require us to remove data added by contributors who don't agree to this change, just like switching to ODbL (unless we want to create two different sets of data and essentially fork the project, which imo is the least attractive option of all). And finally, it would become impossible to re-import modified information from uncooperative users. In order to do this, we'd need permission to distribute it under both licenses, but a user can of course decide to only publish modifications under one of the two licenses. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote: CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such demand. So by following ODbl you break CCbySA. and the law is about black and white not shades of grey. Well, it's a bit more subtle than that, really. When you dual-license something, any reuser can follow *either* license. They have a valid ODbl licence, for example, to follow. Whether it's also CC-BY-SA doesn't matter. Just like if I license something CC-BY-SA and also put it in the public domain, you don't have to attribute your use of it to me. So, you have this a bit backwards: the problem is not that two licences is too restrictive, it's that it's too permissive. And since CC-BY-SA is being deemed too permissive by itself, adding an extra alternative licence couldn't possibly help. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:50:12 +, Matt Amos wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au wrote: Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... Why must there be migration to the new licence? mainly because the current license doesn't work. that is; in some jurisdictions it isn't able to enforce the attribution and share-alike features that most people expect. that's not the only reason, and you can find more information here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License Why can't we run both indefinitely? for the same reason that, if your front door is broken and won't lock, you don't just double-lock your back door ;-) Hi Matt, thanks for your comments. As I mentioned in another email today, I got sold on the idea of The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. Therefore (subliminally) the intent of my edits were to free the data to the extent that my data sources would allow me to do so. I've seen the links and I trust I'm clear on what the LWP is up to. However that's not what I signed up for, to be honest. I mean it's an OpenStreetMap not a CopyleftMap or anything that unambiguous. I got sold on the blurb on that wiki page and didn't really notice the SA fine print. Maybe I should have, but why would I if the large print promised to address holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways? SA still holds them back somewhat. So why not put a wall down the middle of the house and protect that with a proper lock if you like, and leave the other half open for visitors to freely use in creative, productive, or unexpected ways with as little friction as possible? Also I'm not sure if share-alike is a feature that most people expect. The wiki homepage currently does not mention it. The main homepage mentions SA in teeny tiny 5 pixel high text. The main page also mentions much more prominently that OpenStreetMap is a free editable map of the whole world. It is made by people like you. So, cool, I assume free as in information wants to be free and then (apologies to the wiki homepage), I want to edit the mistakes I see on the maps; get out of my way!. I can appreciate that the founders definitely intended sharelike/copyleft principles. But IMHO it's certainly not marketed as a feature to fresh recruits! Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:45:44 +, Peter Childs wrote: 2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both indefinitely? Because there are things you can do with one that you can't do with the other, and there are things you must do with one and you don't need to do with the other. eg CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such demand. So by following ODbl you break CCbySA. and the law is about black and white not shades of grey. For the avoidance of doubt, ways/nodes/relations (and I suppose tags, to be rigorous) would be assigned one licence only. Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: I've seen the links and I trust I'm clear on what the LWP is up to. However that's not what I signed up for, to be honest. I mean it's an OpenStreetMap not a CopyleftMap or anything that unambiguous. I got sold on the blurb on that wiki page and didn't really notice the SA fine print. Maybe I should have, but why would I if the large print promised to address holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways? SA still holds them back somewhat. I disagree, it doesn't hold you back from any of those uses, it just requires you give back if you make changes, and so if you don't make changes to the data there is no limitation on what you can do with it, or how you can use it, and so on. So why not put a wall down the middle of the house and protect that with a proper lock if you like, and leave the other half open for visitors to freely use in creative, productive, or unexpected ways with as little friction as possible? Lets not mix 2 issues up into one big ball, there is no limitations on using said house, however if you want to extend the house that's a different matter, the neighbours might want to copy the blueprints so they can build a similar extension and so the knowledge is passed on rather than hoarded. It is made by people like you. So, cool, I assume free as in information wants to be free and then (apologies to the wiki homepage), I want to edit Free as in beer, free as in speech, free as in able to hoard other peoples wealth to extend your own... the word free is often misused intentionally by PR people, just like the word trust is, but that is another matter for another soap box. I can appreciate that the founders definitely intended sharelike/copyleft principles. But IMHO it's certainly not marketed as a feature to fresh recruits! Again, lets not confuse 2 issues here, are you talking about using, or extending, I assume the latter, but the former has no intended restrictions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/14 Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org: CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such demand. So by following ODbl you break CCbySA. and the law is about black and white not shades of grey. CC-BY is attributation, CC-BY-SA is attributation + sharing changes under the same license. From what I've been told so far CC-BY and ODBL can be happy bed fellows, but the share alike restriction on CC-BY-SA means it and ODBL can't be friends. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:43:38 +1000, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: the large print promised to address holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways? SA still holds them back somewhat. I disagree, it doesn't hold you back from any of those uses, it just requires you give back if you make changes, and so if you don't make changes to the data there is no limitation on what you can do with it, or how you can use it, and so on. And that requirement has a chilling effect (holds you back) on some productive ways. Hypothetical example: I want to put my fast food joints on a map. If I licenced from a typical commercial provider, I pay a one time consideration, produce my mashed up work, and be done with it. If I licenced from OSM contributors under OdbL, I would have to make my working notes for my fast food locations available to anyone who wanted them for perpetuity. So I'd have to establish a role in my company to keep those working notes safe. I think. I'd better hire a lwayer to be sure. I can appreciate that the founders definitely intended sharelike/copyleft principles. But IMHO it's certainly not marketed as a feature to fresh recruits! Again, lets not confuse 2 issues here, are you talking about using, or extending, I assume the latter, but the former has no intended restrictions. Extending/editing. Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: And that requirement has a chilling effect (holds you back) on some productive ways. Hypothetical example: I want to put my fast food joints on a map. If I licenced from a typical commercial provider, I pay a one time consideration, produce my mashed up work, and be done with it. If I licenced from OSM contributors under OdbL, I would have to make my working notes for my fast food locations available to anyone who wanted them for perpetuity. So I'd have to establish a role in my company to keep those working notes safe. I think. I'd better hire a lwayer to be sure. That's a bad example for 2 reasons, firstly why wouldn't you want your locations on OSM maps, it's free advertising! Secondly you would most likely want users to be able to click on a location to have an information pop up, this isn't extending the OSM data to include your locations, this is a JS layer (assuming in browser) and as such you aren't mixing data sets. Extending/editing. That doesn't limit your use of the dataset, just your extension of it, as per the house example I gave, why not share that data back (you seem keen on people sharing data!) so everyone else can benefit from it as well. For example, say a mapping company uses OSM data as the base data set for country X, but they also buy aerial images to improve it, what are they loosing (other than competitive advantages) by not sharing that data back? You seem so in favour of one way sharing, but why do you want to restrict the flow of information back just because a company chooses to not share back for competitive reasons, after all they wouldn't be competitive in the first place without the base OSM data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:43:38 +1000, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: So why not put a wall down the middle of the house and protect that with a proper lock if you like, and leave the other half open for visitors to freely use in creative, productive, or unexpected ways with as little friction as possible? Lets not mix 2 issues up into one big ball, there is no limitations on using said house, however if you want to extend the house that's a different matter, the neighbours might want to copy the blueprints so they can build a similar extension and so the knowledge is passed on rather than hoarded. Well it got mixed up as soon as most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions collided with the existence of ShareAlike. But to continue your blueprint analogy, the neighbours will build a similar extension to their display home and now they're obliged to take care of the blueprint alterations in perpetuity ... or at least while they're using their display home to try to sell houses ? I think I'll call it a night, I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: Well it got mixed up as soon as most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions collided with the existence of ShareAlike. No, your assumptions are bumping into the share a like provision, you assumed something that someone else assumed to be something else, are we all speaking the same flavour of english here? :) But to continue your blueprint analogy, the neighbours will build a similar extension to their display home and now they're obliged to take care of the blueprint alterations in perpetuity ... or at least while they're using their display home to try to sell houses ? Unless they deposit the blueprints into a central repository, lets call it the sum of all human knowledge on blueprints of house designs, where you may find something useful to help you, and store information that might be useful to others. I think I'll call it a night, I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. It's simple, GPL = share the sand box with others, BSD = let others hoard any changes they make without regard or respect for any effort others have put into the pot. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
CC-BY-SA says this: You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. The ODbL attempts to do exactly that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: CC-BY-SA says this: You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. The ODbL attempts to do exactly that. Correct, but the reason for ODBL is because some people think/assume CC-BY-SA isn't enforcible on geodata. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: CC-BY-SA says this: You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. The ODbL attempts to do exactly that. Correct, but the reason for ODBL is because some people think/assume CC-BY-SA isn't enforcible on geodata. CC-BY-SA isn't enforcible on anything. It grants rights, it doesn't take them away. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Well, this particular thread was asking Why can't we run both [CC-BY-SA and the ODbL] indefinitely? I gave one answer. Because the terms of CC-BY-SA disallow it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Well, this particular thread was asking Why can't we run both [CC-BY-SA and the ODbL] indefinitely? I gave one answer. Because the terms of CC-BY-SA disallow it. Aren't you misreading the terms? Say there is user A, with work W, licensed CC-BY-SA. The terms say that user B cannot take W, and license it in a way that interferes with CC-BY-SA. It doesn't stop user A doing so. It's his work, he can do what he wants with it. In the same way, OSM data belongs to its contributors, who can license it however they want. (Not that any of this is relevant, because this is not happening, nor is proposed seriously.) Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: CC-BY-SA isn't enforcible on anything. It grants rights, it doesn't take them away. It's a license, if you break licenses on software you can be taken to court to make sure you do follow them in future and are punished for past digressions. So while it grants rights, the license may not be enforcible in a court of law if you feel wronged. Well, this particular thread was asking Why can't we run both [CC-BY-SA and the ODbL] indefinitely? I gave one answer. Because the terms of CC-BY-SA disallow it. And because some think cc-by-sa wouldn't be enforcible in some jurisdictions if they were misusing OSMs data against the spirit of the current license. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:50 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: CC-BY-SA isn't enforcible on anything. It grants rights, it doesn't take them away. It's a license, if you break licenses on software you can be taken to court to make sure you do follow them in future and are punished for past digressions. No, if you break copyright law you can be taken to court to make sure you don't break copyright law in the future. If break licenses, then, well, it depends on the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA, if you breach the terms of the license, the license is terminated. You are then sued, not for breach of license, but for a violation of copyright law. Unlike breach of contract, copyright violations can result in statutory damages, punitive damages (punish[ment] for past digressions), and injunctions (to make sure you do follow them in future) in addition to actual damages. Unlike breach of contract. Breach of contract does not allow injunctions (to make sure you do follow them in future) or punitive damages (punish[ment] for past digressions). Read Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the commentary on it, and then get back to us. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Read Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the commentary on it, and then get back to us. Wasn't there some case where one company sued another for not making source code available as required? Also, what jurisdiction are you referring to there? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: No, if you break copyright law you can be taken to court to make sure you don't break copyright law in the future. If break licenses, then, well, it depends on the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA, if you breach the terms You are confusing contracts with licenses, works are licensed in a particular way to tell you what the author has allowed you to do under copyright, cc-by-sa is a copyright license, which is the whole point, cc-by-sa/copyright alone have been deemed to not be sufficient to protect geodata, which is why people are adding contract law and database law into the mix. of the license, the license is terminated. You are then sued, not for breach of license, but for a violation of copyright law. Unlike breach of That would be like saying GPL, which is a license, is a contract and you can be sued for breach of contract but that isn't the case, people that break the GPL requirements are taken to court because of breaching copyright. Read Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the commentary on it, and then get back to us. I think you need to do a little more reading, you are confusing things between contract and copyright law. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Read Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the commentary on it, and then get back to us. Wasn't there some case where one company sued another for not making source code available as required? There has been a lot of these, and GPL has been upheld as a result, usually lawsuits over copyright violations is a last resort. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:31 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: No, if you break copyright law you can be taken to court to make sure you don't break copyright law in the future. If break licenses, then, well, it depends on the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA, if you breach the terms You are confusing contracts with licenses, A license is generally recognized as a type of contract. In the case of CC-BY-SA and most free licenses, it would be a unilateral contract, but it's still a contract. The rest of your post is basically incoherent, so I've given up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:31 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: No, if you break copyright law you can be taken to court to make sure you don't break copyright law in the future. If break licenses, then, well, it depends on the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA, if you breach the terms You are confusing contracts with licenses, A license is generally recognized as a type of contract. In the case of CC-BY-SA and most free licenses, it would be a unilateral contract, but it's still a contract. No, just like when you buy a CD you are receiving it under a license, even if most rights are reserved, cc-by-sa gives you a lot more rights/freedoms but it's still to do with copyright law. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
