Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:08 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing those licenses?), but ODbL for example might be compatible with CT although it's not compaitble with the current OSM's license. But it might be in the future. Is ODbL licensed content compatible with the current CTs? My understanding is that ODbL does not allow you to grant a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence bla bla bla... to anyone. So no ODbL licensed datasets can be contributed to OSM. None at all. And that includes ODbL content that came from OSM in the first place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 00:38, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now in use by contributors. If so how and to whom do I serve notice that even though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my edits before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed. I'm happy to get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward will meet the new criteria. Hi John, What is your OSM account name? Where did the imported data come from: government source, printed map, something else? Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au Cc: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday Hi, David Murn wrote: What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. If data is tainted in a way that makes it compatible with the currently used license, but it is likely that the data will have to be removed should OSM ever change to a different license under the CT 2/3 of active mappers clause, then things are difficult - it would certainly be better in the long run to replace such data by data that is fully compliant, and I would estimate tools to be developed that would aim to gradually phase out such limited-release data and make sure such data is not used to build upon if it can be avoided. But I don't think it would be removed outright - I guess the decision will be delayed until such time as anyone actually proposes changing the license again. There's also a third kind of tainted that sits in the middle of these two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper. There's also a fourth kind of tainted data. Data that might be compatible with CC-BY-SA, and might be compatible with ODbL, but is incompatible with the CT's. In which case the question becomes, if someone who has accepted the CT's, is in breach of the CT's because some data they have contributed in the past is incompatible with the CT's, will all their data be removed and their user account blocked? Or is OSM happy to allow those people who are in breach of the CT's to continue to contribute to the project, in which case why bother having the CT's in the first place? David Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:49:20 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. Bye Frederik This is not a simplistic legal question at all. Where I am, right now, a contract has to have certain features to be valid. It must be agreed to by both parties, and there shall not be coercion, and it must not be unconscionable. So a shrink-wrap or click-through licence is not enforceable. We have already one example of a person who has mistakenly agreed, and who has notified OSMF, and will have to be released from the contract. So instead of claiming that every yes is permanent, protocols will need to be made for these circumstances. As OSMF has delved into contract law with the ODbL, the various contract laws of hundreds of nations worldwide will have to be considered. Hopefully they fall into major groupings to make your task easier. Liz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Hi, On 04/15/2011 10:13 AM, David Groom wrote: There's also a third kind of tainted that sits in the middle of these two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper. There's also a fourth kind of tainted data. Data that might be compatible with CC-BY-SA, and might be compatible with ODbL, but is incompatible with the CT's. It would be very hard to construct something of that kind. The most common thing is certainly going to be the above third case, where you have the right to distribute data under CC-BY-SA or maybe even ODbL or maybe you even have the right to distribute it under any license with a BY component, but you do not have the right to authorize a third party (OSMF) to perform such distribution. For data of your fourth kind you would have to have a data provider who says you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL, and you have the right to sublicense not only under these licenses, but you also under these licenses plus the additional privilege of further sublicensing. I'm not aware of such a situation even existing. In which case the question becomes, if someone who has accepted the CT's, is in breach of the CT's because some data they have contributed in the past is incompatible with the CT's, will all their data be removed and their user account blocked? The best was to deal with such situations is to identify the affected data and remove only that. Ideally, users should, when agreeing to the CT, notify OSMF of those past contributions that are not CT compatible. The idea of accepting selected individual contributions without CT agreement - i.e. contributions which are CC-BY-SA or ODbL only with sublicensing option - has been floated over half a year ago, and this is a real possibility for cases where data loss would be too great otherwise. This would essentially defer data loss - the loss would not happen right away but at some later time if the license is changed again. This will always have to be a case-by-case decision by OSMF because it has the potential to cause trouble in the future and puts holes in the shiny new license regime we're hoping to have. Or is OSM happy to allow those people who are in breach of the CT's to continue to contribute to the project, in which case why bother having the CT's in the first place? As I said, there might be *selected* *individual* cases where we say oh well, we'll rather have your data now and accept that we have to remove it if we should ever change the license again, than not have your data at all. But just because we say so in one or two cases, doesn't mean we abandon the idea of a simplified later license change altogether. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday Hi, On 04/15/2011 10:13 AM, David Groom wrote: There's also a third kind of tainted that sits in the middle of these two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper. There's also a fourth kind of tainted data. Data that might be compatible with CC-BY-SA, and might be compatible with ODbL, but is incompatible with the CT's. It would be very hard to construct something of that kind. The most common thing is certainly going to be the above third case, where you have the right to distribute data under CC-BY-SA or maybe even ODbL or maybe you even have the right to distribute it under any license with a BY component, but you do not have the right to authorize a third party (OSMF) to perform such distribution. For data of your fourth kind you would have to have a data provider who says you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL, and you have the right to sublicense not only under these licenses, but you also under these licenses plus the additional privilege of further sublicensing. I'm not aware of such a situation even existing. Surely all you need is a data provider who says you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL but you dont have the right to grant a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright , in respect of my data In which case the question becomes, if someone who has accepted the CT's, is in breach of the CT's because some data they have contributed in the past is incompatible with the CT's, will all their data be removed and their user account blocked? The best was to deal with such situations is to identify the affected data and remove only that. Ideally, users should, when agreeing to the CT, notify OSMF of those past contributions that are not CT compatible. So your ideal is that people should agree to the CT's even if they know that they are in breach of the CT's! That's not my idea of ideal, but I guess we will have to agree to differ on this point, and wait to see what the official OSM position is on dealing with people who are in breach of the CT's David The idea of accepting selected individual contributions without CT agreement - i.e. contributions which are CC-BY-SA or ODbL only with sublicensing option - has been floated over half a year ago, and this is a real possibility for cases where data loss would be too great otherwise. This would essentially defer data loss - the loss would not happen right away but at some later time if the license is changed again. This will always have to be a case-by-case decision by OSMF because it has the potential to cause trouble in the future and puts holes in the shiny new license regime we're hoping to have. Or is OSM happy to allow those people who are in breach of the CT's to continue to contribute to the project, in which case why bother having the CT's in the first place? As I said, there might be *selected* *individual* cases where we say oh well, we'll rather have your data now and accept that we have to remove it if we should ever change the license again, than not have your data at all. But just because we say so in one or two cases, doesn't mean we abandon the idea of a simplified later license change altogether. Bye Frederik ___ 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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Johnwhelan is the account name. Unfortunately I have made a fair number of edits. The concern is I'm not comfortable that all of these meet the new standard but I'm unsure which ones do and which don't. I'm happy to reenter data following the new guidelines. I'm not happy to have some one else say don't worry about it. Thanks John On 15 April 2011 03:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 15 April 2011 00:38, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now in use by contributors. If so how and to whom do I serve notice that even though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my edits before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed. I'm happy to get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward will meet the new criteria. Hi John, What is your OSM account name? Where did the imported data come from: government source, printed map, something else? Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 13:28, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Johnwhelan is the account name. Unfortunately I have made a fair number of edits. The concern is I'm not comfortable that all of these meet the new standard but I'm unsure which ones do and which don't. I'm happy to reenter data following the new guidelines. I'm not happy to have some one else say don't worry about it. Thanks for that. What is the answer to my second question? Where do the potentially problem contributions come from? Email me off list if you must. Regards Grant Thanks John On 15 April 2011 03:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 15 April 2011 00:38, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now in use by contributors. If so how and to whom do I serve notice that even though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my edits before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed. I'm happy to get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward will meet the new criteria. Hi John, What is your OSM account name? Where did the imported data come from: government source, printed map, something else? Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Frederik Ramm wrote: It would be very hard to construct something of that kind. The most common thing is certainly going to be the above third case, where you have the right to distribute data under CC-BY-SA or maybe even ODbL or maybe you even have the right to distribute it under any license with a BY component, but you do not have the right to authorize a third party (OSMF) to perform such distribution. For data of your fourth kind you would have to have a data provider who says you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL, and you have the right to sublicense not only under these licenses, but you also under these licenses plus the additional privilege of further sublicensing. I'm not aware of such a situation even existing. Looking at the imports catalogue ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue ), there seem to be a number of imports that have an explicit licensing of CC-BY-SA or ODbL and thus sound like they fall into that category (e.g. plan.at or Afghanistan Roads). So they would be compatible with the OSM license, but not the CT. In addition, it is imho not clear that not some of the many imports listed as Attribution licensed wouldn't fall into this category, too (rather than in category 3 as CC-BY). I thought that the new CTs were supposed to fix this issue by only requiring people to give the full rights they them selves own and then vouch for that the data is also compatible with the current licensing. But it sounds like that clause was dropped again in CTs 1.2.4? (At least that is how I understood the recent discussion on legal-talk). So we are back to nothing is compatible with the CTs other than a PD (like) license? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-begins-Sunday-tp6272616p6276776.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Hi, On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: I thought that the new CTs were supposed to fix this issue [...] I have answered on legal-talk. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:36:34 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: I thought that the new CTs were supposed to fix this issue [...] I have answered on legal-talk. Bye Frederik Frederick, it has occurred to me that if you are unhappy with what is discussed on talk, you could unsubscribe. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
What worries me here is that there are all these versions of the document, the licenses etc. How are you going to deal with different people agreeing to different contracts at different times? mike On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:08 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote: On 14 April 2011 21:06, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before switching the license, you will not be liable. Until then the data will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights which you are able to grant. I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an answer to people asking about this in non-English forums. see this thread (in particular Fracis Davey's comments) on the legal talk mailing list http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing those licenses?), but ODbL for example might be compatible with CT although it's not compaitble with the current OSM's license. But it might be in the future. Is that correct? Is that also the intent of the CTs 1.2.4? I think it would be good to have a human readable form of this document written by its authors. I haven't read the CC-By-SA license code in this context but I'm reading in Francis' response that there's something in it that makes it not compatible. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 20:36 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: I thought that the new CTs were supposed to fix this issue [...] I have answered on legal-talk. We dont care if you answered on a podcast sent to the moon. The question was asked here, and if you believe that discussion should belong on legal-talk, Ive got over 200 messages from the last 4 days that disagree and believe the issue is of great enough importance to not be hidden away. As much as you might like feeling superior that you read a legal list, most of us really couldnt give a toss, and simply want answers to our questions. If youre not prepared to answer them concisely (other than keeping on pointing at a mailing list archive) then would you please kindly sit down and STFU? I dont think Im the only one getting sick of you fobbing off tricky questions in the same generic way, if you dont know the answer, dont say anything and leave it up to those who DO know the answer. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
2011/4/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 20:36 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I have answered on legal-talk. that disagree and believe the issue is of great enough importance to not be hidden away. it is not hidden away, and you don't even have to be subscribed to legal talk to read it: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/ cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
mc == Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz writes: mc In summary: This only affects you if you are an OpenStreetMap mc contributor who registered before 12th May 2010 and have not taken mc part in our voluntary re-licensing program. Before being able to mc edit, you will have accept or decline new contributor terms. To mc give time to get the word out, this does not take effect until mc Sunday! It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Thanks John On 14 April 2011 10:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 14 April 2011 17:26, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Can you expand? Where was the data sourced from and under what license? Can you point to any specific changesets? Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 14 April 2011 18:26, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before switching the license, you will not be liable. Until then the data will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights which you are able to grant. I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an answer to people asking about this in non-English forums. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
- Original Message - From: andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com To: john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday On 14 April 2011 18:26, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before switching the license, you will not be liable. Until then the data will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights which you are able to grant. I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an answer to people asking about this in non-English forums. see this thread (in particular Fracis Davey's comments) on the legal talk mailing list http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html David Cheers ___ 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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 16:49 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Hi, David Murn wrote: What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. If data is tainted in a way that makes it compatible with the currently used license, but it is likely that the data will have to be removed should OSM ever change to a different license under the CT 2/3 of active mappers clause, then things are difficult - it would certainly be better in the long run to replace such data by data that is fully compliant, and I would estimate tools to be developed that would aim to gradually phase out such limited-release data and make sure such data is not used to build upon if it can be avoided. But I don't think it would be removed outright - I guess the decision will be delayed until such time as anyone actually proposes changing the license again. There's also a third kind of tainted that sits in the middle of these two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now in use by contributors. If so how and to whom do I serve notice that even though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my edits before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed. I'm happy to get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward will meet the new criteria. Many thanks Cheerio John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. So you are happy to breach your own contract? Since already there are people decieved by all this have blindly agreed only to find out later they don't have the right to. It seems all those years of pushing to not include tainted data only matters if you aren't an individual, and OSM-F is more than happy to include tainted data from end users. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 01:08 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become aware the data is tainted. You clearly stated in your previous email that once the user has accepted there is no way to change the decision to decline, then here say that if that situation came up that it would have to be done. Is there anyone here who can answer these questions the same in sequential emails? While this isnt a licence specific question, its a question specific to the thread at hand about users accepting or declining to have their edits released under the new licence/terms. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 12:51, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become aware the data is tainted. Wouldn't breach of clause 1 break the entire contract ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 14 April 2011 21:06, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before switching the license, you will not be liable. Until then the data will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights which you are able to grant. I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an answer to people asking about this in non-English forums. see this thread (in particular Fracis Davey's comments) on the legal talk mailing list http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing those licenses?), but ODbL for example might be compatible with CT although it's not compaitble with the current OSM's license. But it might be in the future. Is that correct? Is that also the intent of the CTs 1.2.4? I think it would be good to have a human readable form of this document written by its authors. I haven't read the CC-By-SA license code in this context but I'm reading in Francis' response that there's something in it that makes it not compatible. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
