from:"Richard Fairhurst"

SimonPoole wrote:
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we 
> would appreciate feedback on.

This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the
ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page.
Thank you.

Two small wording clarifications:

"If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the
visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page
that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."

This probably needs to be qualified to the "currently visible map
rendering", and "50%" phrased as "50% of objects" or similar - just to
clarify the (quite likely) scenario where a map uses OSM data in (say)
Turkey, TomTom everywhere else, and Natural Earth for coastlines/land.

"It is permissible to use a mechanism to collapse the attribution as long as
it is initially fully visible"

This would be better as "It is permissible to provide a user-activated
mechanism to...". There are apps which flash up an OSM credit for under a
second, after which it disappears (including one terrific iOS mapping app
which I would otherwise recommend).

cheers
Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution 
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service 
> or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more 
> prominently than OSM.

That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an
obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.

"Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big
Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the
ODbL.

The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution
other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying
"there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an
infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause.

But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
be at least on the same level of 
prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

> Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much 
> like being written by corporate representatives

Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a
magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever
since, so nope. :)

Richard

[1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update


Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark, 
there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and 
a link „and others“
while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate 
attribution clearly goes against „reasonably calculated“ because it’s 
misleading.


I know this, but let's not confuse the matter by calling this "second 
rate attribution". It isn't. It's no attribution.


These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM 
attribution behind a click is not acceptable. That's unambiguous all we 
need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a diversion 
and is not supported by the ODbL.


Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is:  For example 
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but 
> showing OSM attribution only on user activity.

Right. The problem there is not that the "Zeit Online" attribution is too
big. The problem is that the OSM attribution is not compliant. Don't make
the issue more complex than it needs to be.

> The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how 
> to comply with the license.

And if the guidance suggests something that is not in the licence, it will
be - rightly - ignored, and we will have made no progress.

Community Guidelines explain how to apply the ODbL to real-world situations
("ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open
Database License"). You say "it can of course suggest things that are not
strictly required by the license", and sure, it could. It could also tell me
what the weather will be like tomorrow and the relevance of Martin Luther to
21st century religious thought. But that's not what Community Guidelines are
there for. They are here to explain how to apply the ODbL. If you want
somewhere to post good advice that isn't in the ODbL, I believe you have a
blog.

> > Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I
> > was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> > osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)
>
> You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider 
> this statement to be an argument on the matter.
>
> For better understanding:  Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in 
> the design of the document and lists a number of example to 
> demonstrate that.  You could argue the observation of there being 
> such a pattern or you could argue the individual examples.  You 
> however did neither of these in your statement.

For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like 
being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that one 
of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in 2012,
so not a corporate representative, and has been at osm.org/copyright
ever since.

Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

[OSM-talk] EuroVelo routes are out of date

2019-10-03 Thread Richard Fairhurst

EuroVelo routes are not in a great state in OSM. Many of them appear to have 
been armchaired years ago when routes were "in development", and not updated 
since to reflect the correct route.

A handful of examples:

[France]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12!49.2876!2.655
EV3 should follow the new cycleway along the Oise, not the busy D932a

[Czech Republic]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=11!49.9195!14.4621
EV7 is completely wrong in OSM from the south of Prague to Nahoruby, including 
unrideable tracks and a suggestion that cyclists use a “ferry” that in reality 
is a tourist boat that only operates at weekends

[Spain]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!41.9486!3.1467
EV8 now follows the Pirinexus alignment

…and there are lots more.

I realise people are preoccupied with tagwanking over relation tagging [1] and 
sorting [2] and editor snobbery [3], but there’s not a lot of point fretting 
over how pretty the tagging is on the route relation if the route is actually 
wrong in the first place.

Could I encourage people to check the EuroVelo routes in their home countries 
and update them where necessary?

Richard

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047790.html
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047258.html
[3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042154.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Digital environmentalism

2020-02-26 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking, 
> cycling, and public transit, and their public transit information is 
> probably more complete than OSM's.

It is, but on the other hand Google's walking and cycling routing is _much_
worse.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Web editors and lane rendering

2020-02-19 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Paul Johnson wrote:
> Could we get some lane editing/rendering in these editors 
> to cut down on this kind of unintentionally erratic mapping?

Sure, you're welcome to open a friendly issue at
https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/issues listing the base case for what
you think is required.

> > Not sure whatever Potlatch is still developed,
> I would hope it is if it's still considered an available selection 
> on the website; if not, maybe it's time to retire that option.

It's developed as and when it needs to be. I think it's likely that it will
come off the Edit menu after December this year when Flash Player support is
no longer available in browsers, although it will probably continue to be
available as an executable app via Adobe/Harman AIR.

Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo

2020-02-17 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Rory McCann wrote:
> The existence of an OSM cycling logo doesn't mean all 
> OSMers have to be cycling activists!

Wait, what?

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"

2020-04-17 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© 
> OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation
> (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be 
> necessary to credit the contributors.

When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it
required that particular attribution were:

"©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I
take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that
the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©"
serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits
that are required by other maps".

"OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously.

"contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project:
this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the
attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand:
"TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap
contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and,
implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for
OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my
mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more
contributors and make the map better.

I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might
be helpful.

Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

2020-05-03 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then 
> OSM would be violating others' ODbL licenses.

When data is imported from an attribution-required dataset, OSM takes the
view that a waiver from that requirement should be obtained. For example,
for CC-BY licences:

"...attribution to all such sources on an OpenStreetMap-based map or similar
visual display is impossible. Instead, we provide attribution (including
original license information) to major sources like [entity] on our
Contributors page. OpenStreetMap users are then required to attribute
'OpenStreetMap Contributors' in a collective fashion when using any
OpenStreetMap data... we just need you to confirm that you would consider
OpenStreetMap's attribution method to attribute [entity] in a 'reasonable
manner' in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license."

[linked from https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ ]

ODbL's core attribution requirement ("a notice associated with the Produced
Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses,
interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work") is not
materially different from CC-BY's ("any reasonable manner based on the
medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material"). In
other words, given that OSM believes CC-BY implies on-map attribution unless
a waiver is received, it also believes that for ODbL. OSMF has not issued
any such waivers.

> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by 
> a company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with 
> but *is not hosted* by an entity.

It really isn't. This has been introduced to the discourse in the last
(AFAICT) three months by Silicon Valley folks. I had never seen it suggested
before then. It certainly wasn't part of the discourse on attribution when
OSM adopted the ODbL and set out its current attribution requirements; you
can go back and ask the major SaaS map providers of the time if you like.

Every single major current webmap, with one exception[1], credits principal
non-OSM _data providers_ on-map on desktop. Google Maps has on-screen
attribution to their principal data providers. Bing does. HERE does (it's
themselves). ViaMichelin does. TomTom (MyDrive) does. Mapquest does. Tencent
does. Qwant does. The USGS National Map does. Esri's ArcGIS "My Map" does.
You can go and check these. I did.

The key word here is "principal". From your previous message:

> Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes 
> 3 clicks to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices. 
> And another 4 clicks to get to this page:
> https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices

The three clicks take you to a page crediting the public transport authority
for Baden-Wurttemberg for contributing public transport info. Fine. It takes
two clicks on osm.org (Copyright -> Contributors) to get to the equivalent.

That's proportionate. It's not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about maps where 90%+ of the data comes from OSM, yet a credit to
OSM is either missing entirely or deliberately obscured. Please let's not
try to derail the issue of OSM-based maps missing all credit to OSM by
talking about bus timetables in Heidelberg.

Richard

[1] The one exception is Apple Maps, presumably because if you're Apple and
your market cap is $1.2trn you can do what you like. Even then, it's one
click away on mobile, and you could take the view that one click is larger
and more prominent than several other cases under discussion.

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

2020-08-01 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Sören Reinecke wrote:
> So far as I understood Adobe dropped Linux support for its
> AIR plattform. If that is right, then I am in doubt that
> supporting the development of Potlatch 2 is not that in
> a sustainable manner.

AIR is not maintained by Adobe, but by Harman, a Samsung subsidiary. AIR for 
Linux is still supported at version 2.6 but not updated 
(https://airsdk.harman.com/faq): Harman is considering future updates. P2 will 
still run on 2.6 - there are explicit workarounds in the code (e.g. in 
net/systemeD/potlatch2/collections/Imagery.as) to ensure backward compatibility.

Nonetheless, even if P2 didn't run on Linux, I'm not sure why this should be an 
issue for other users. No-one says Vespucci isn't sustainable because it 
doesn't run on iOS.

mmd wrote:
> Why aren't we porting Potlatch2 to WebAssembly, then?

I'm not sure who the "we" is in this question, but assuming you're not 
volunteering yourself :), the difficult dependency with P2 is not ActionScript 
3 but the Flash runtime, i.e. the Flash and Flex APIs. There are currently only 
two runtimes capable of running P2: Flash Player and AIR. Ruffle is showing 
promise (https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle) and is under very active 
development, but does not yet support AS3 or the Flash Player features that P2 
needs. I would anticipate that P2 will be able to run as WebAssembly when 
Ruffle reaches feature parity with AIR 2.6.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

2020-08-02 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think using any funds at all to
> continue support for a tool that 1% of editors use would be wasteful.
> Flash is, for all intents and purposes, a dead technology. This
> money is better spent on other uses.

The entire point is to move away from a dead technology (Flash Player) to a 
supported one (AIR).

On the percentage stat, it's worth bearing in mind that the P2 project is by a 
long chalk the smallest sum (€2500) of the three that OSMF is proposing here. 
As a point of comparison, iD was initially developed with a $575,000 grant from 
the Knight Foundation in 2012, so roughly $646,000 now. Very conservatively 
estimating the cost of employing 1-2 developers to code on iD since then, you 
get a development cost of roughly €0.004 per (2020) changeset for iD vs $0.0002 
for P2, which is kind of fun.

(I'm actually pleasantly surprised that P2 still has so many changesets - 20 
million last year, and I'm guessing high teens this year - given how difficult 
it is to get Flash Player running in most browsers these days. That suggests 
that P2's users are using it because they want to do so, not because they are 
magically unaware of the existence of other editors. I suspect if you could 
find another way of getting 20 million edits for €2500 then we would snap your 
hand off.)

Looking forward, and continuing the theme of ROI, the other benefit of the 
project is that it enables development work to continue on P2. The reason I 
have bid for funding for this, for the first time in 14 years of developing 
editors for OpenStreetMap, is that it will take a solid chunk of sustained work 
to do the AIR conversion and a bunch of other stuff I believe will make P2 more 
sustainable into the future, and there is a hard deadline for that sustained 
work (i.e. Flash Player switch-off at the end of the year). It's not a project 
that can just be done in evenings here and there. That enables further, 
unfunded developments in the future, and in turn I hope the tradition of other 
editors taking inspiration from P2 can continue - it's not for nothing that 
JOSM has a Potlatch 2 style and a "Potlatch mode" for editing.

But you are, of course, welcome to develop and put forward a project to OSMF 
which you believe will have more bang for the buck. "Other uses" is easy to 
type but doesn't actually mean anything until you identify what those uses are, 
and crucially, find someone who is prepared to do them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch

2020-08-02 Thread Richard Fairhurst

mmd wrote:
> I'm wondering if some of the changes that are now needed for AIR
> would make it more difficult to switch to Ruffle later on.

The short answer is (based on the POC work I've done so far) no. :)
The slightly longer answer is that I hope, as part of this project,
to make a number of changes that are not directly AIR-related but
will make P2 maintenance more sustainable into the future.

> I'm a bit worried about AIR being (too) difficult to install
> and run for an average Potlatch user, but that's just a gut feeling.

Couple of things here. One is that AIR isn't any more difficult to
install than Flash Player, but with the difference that it doesn't
break every time there's a browser upgrade and the browser
manufacturer tries to get you to switch it off. The other is that
2020's P2 users, contrary to the cliche of 2010, are actually pretty
skilled and experienced (by definition the beginner users use iD
these days) - many of them have a four-figure number of
changesets - so installing AIR shouldn't be beyond them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

2020-12-10 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Blake Girardot wrote:
> I will just point out a common pattern:

Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant 
profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same 
dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things.

It might therefore be incumbent on us all to shut up and let women be heard. 
Their experiences do not need to be mediated through our mansplaining.

In that spirit I'll post no more on this.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

2020-12-02 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Michal Migurski wrote:
> FB’s attribution approach in keeping with best practices
> seen from other commercial users of display maps.

In the spirit of Twitter footnoting one of Donald Trump's "I won the election" 
tweets, this is your respectful reminder that Google, Bing, Here, Tencent, 
ViaMichelin, TomTom, Mapquest, Esri, and Qwant all have on-map attribution.

http://www.systemed.net/osm/attribution.png

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Public Rights of Way overlay missing

2023-01-05 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Jas Ranasinghe wrote:
> Is anyone able to provide any information about the missing Public
> Rights of Way overlay? It is still currently in the overlay list, but the
> Rights of Way do not show up on the map.

I'm guessing this refers to one of the tile layers I host at osm.cycle.travel. 
Unfortunately one of the hosts I use let me down (repeated outages and very 
little support), so I had to move a bunch of stuff at short notice on New 
Year's Eve. I haven't had chance to move a few of the tile layers yet but 
should be able to in the next few days.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

2023-05-03 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Courtney wrote:
> Or is it going to keep doing the same old flame wars?

To be honest, the mailing lists have been on the way out for a long time now, 
and talk@ is no exception. Some once busy lists are now basically dead (dev@, 
legal-talk@, talk-de@). Others are noticeably quieter (talk@, talk-fr@, 
osmf-talk@). A few local communities still prefer mailing lists but they're 
fewer in number every year. Generally, the vital new stuff in OSM doesn't 
happen on mailing lists.

So I wouldn't suggest worrying too much about the lists. Theory and practice of 
community interaction elsewhere in OSM is absolutely a valid and interesting 
topic, but the lists belong to pretty much the same period in OSM history as 
IRC and Potlatch, and I say that as someone who still uses both. :)

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

[Talk-transit] Public transport proposal

2011-01-13 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Hello all,

I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for  
mapping simple public transport objects.


Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will  
also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors  
(Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent  
with the rest of the editor?


cheers
Richard


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal

2011-01-13 Thread Richard Fairhurst


André Joost wrote:

No need to panic, you don't *have* to use relations.


I'm not panicking as a mapper. As a mapper I have exactly 0.0 interest  
in mapping bus stops.


I'm anxious as an editor (co-)author.

If such relations become widespread, they will (without explicit  
support) appear in editors as unexplained, anonymous, undocumented  
entries in the standard relations view. Inexperienced mappers will,  
therefore, break them. At this point people will start ranting XYZ  
editor breaks public transport relations, BAN XYZ EDITOR!!^%!@£.  
Believe me, I've seen it countless times before.


Potlatch 2 has dedicated editors for route relations and  
turn-restriction relations. If this proposal is to be adopted (and I  
concur exactly with Chris Hill's thoughts on its merits, but that's  
by-the-by), it will need to be supported in a similar way.


It is incumbent on those making the proposal to consider how this  
might be achieved. Saying oh, the editor writers are my coding  
bitches and will happily spend a weekend of their time supporting my  
latest idea is not an answer.



A preset for josm is already in progress.


And Potlatch and Merkaartor? You can't just support your own favourite  
editor and consider your responsibility absolved.


cheers
Richard


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism

2011-01-22 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:

IMHO not related to the proposal:
- potlatch can not handle the proposal/nested relations correctly:


The latest version of Potlatch (Potlatch 2) handles nested relations 
excellently. About 10 seconds' research would have told you that.


Richard

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going

2008-01-09 Thread Richard Fairhurst

rob wrote:

 Quoting Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On the face it claims to work in those jurisdictions via contract
 law, but what is not clear to me is how you require people to enter
 into that contract.

 Yes this is my concern about the ODL. The GPL for example is a license
 not a contract in US law terms.

Although the recent Artistic License case has taken a different view:
http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-open-source-legal-decision-jacobsen.html

But I agree that it's an important (and interesting) question.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going

2008-01-09 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Hi again,

Rob and Frederik - I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that  
you're never going to convince each other. ;)

A note on consultation and community might be helpful.

As the Foundation we are, of course, keeping track of the different  
strands of opinion within the community (share-alike or not,  
attribution or not, and so on). List discussion is helpful for this,  
as was SOTM, and there are many more avenues where OSMers make their  
feelings known.

As the opengeodata posting states, We cant change anything without  
you. You, not the Foundation, own the rights to your mapping. So our  
interest is in finding a solution that has a realistic chance of being  
adopted by the community.

Right now, this debate is part of an informal consultation, if you  
like. Now that we've posted the update, people are of course going to  
voice their views, and those will feed into the rough view of the OSM  
community. There will no doubt be more updates posted on opengeodata  
during which the rough view will evolve further.

If the rough view (for example) appeared to coalesce around ODCL  
looks good, let's do it now, we would be able to start work on a  
formal relicensing process. (I'd envisage, and this is very definitely  
only my perception rather than an as-yet adopted Foundation plan, that  
such relicensing could involve: discussion with the ODC authors until  
the licenses are in a state we consider usable; independent review by  
a qualified third party; and, finally, contacting every single  
registered OSM user to request their assent to the change.)

If this rough view, however, does not settle so neatly, then the  
Foundation will need to decide whether it should embark on a formal  
consultation before the relicensing (maybe like the poll that some  
have mentioned); and the outcome of that consultation would affect the  
proposed relicensing.

I should note that there's nothing[1] in this process that only the  
Foundation can do. It is something the Foundation _wants_ to do just  
because of its role to look after the best interests of the project.  
Anyone who wants to open discussions with a lawyer or stage their own  
poll is welcome to: I would hope that the Foundation is being open  
enough that no-one would feel the need to start a whole separate  
process, but the option is always there.

cheers
Richard

[1] except, in the event of a relicensing, a potential mail-out to  
every registered OSM user.



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're and are, where we're going

2008-01-09 Thread Richard Fairhurst

(follow-ups to legal-talk, please)

Peter Miller wrote:

 There are clearly uncertainties and complications with the current licence,
 however it does allow for the license to be upgraded without going back to
 original contributors for permission.

In OSM's case that's unlikely to be true.

Copyright in OSM contributions is owned by the original contributors,  
not by OSMF. As the CC-BY-SA 2.0 summary says, A new version of this  
license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may  
want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically  
put under the new license, however.

Since no works are automatically put under the new licence, every  
contributor would have to choose to move to (say) CC-Data-BY-SA just  
as they would any other licence.


 As such I feel confident that CC could
 come up with a derivative of CC-BY-SA 3.0 that covers our needs and plug the
 gaps (and those of other gedata/DB type datasets generally); after all, if
 the ODL can do it then why can't CC do it

The following background is absolutely crucial. It's in the  
OpenGeoData post but I'll take the chance to restate it. I'd encourage  
you, Longbow4u and others to reflect on it.

* The Open Data Commons Database Licence is a share-alike licence with  
attribution elements. It is, as you say, in the spirit of CC-BY-SA.

* Its authors are working with Creative Commons.

* Creative Commons has a strong policy that facts are free[1]. They  
have therefore now introduced a licence for factual information, but  
this is essentially public domain (CC0/PDDL) with a voluntary request  
to share info. We are _not_ recommending that OSM adopts that licence.  
The ODC Database Licence is entirely separate.


So to specifically answer your point about if the ODL can do it then  
why can't CC do it:

* CC doesn't believe factual information should be subject to  
restrictions, so _won't_ do it.

* But if CC were to do it (if, for example, they were lobbied to do  
so), their existing collaboration with ODC makes it very likely that  
they would actually adopt the Open Data Commons Database Licence.

In other words, this option is significantly _more_ copyleft than CC  
themselves propose.


 Btw, where should this debate be happening? Personally I suggest the legal
 nerdy details are discussed on legal-talk but any discussion about
 principles are discussed on 'talk'

It's a good point, but in practice legal-talk will work best because  
it's very difficult to separate the two, and because discussions will  
drift from one to the other. We also don't want to overwhelm the rest  
of the project with it!

cheers
Richard


[1] From their database FAQ: As you know, Creative Commons and  
Science Commons work to promote freely available content and  
information. Our preference is that people do not overstate their  
copyright or other legal rights. Consequently, we adopt the position  
that 'facts are free' and people should be educated so that they are  
aware of this.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Software under GPLv2 / v3

2008-02-15 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Martijn van Exel wrote:

 We're considering the agreement between NLNet and OpenStreetMap-NL for
 a €15k grant for software development.
 It states that 'This software platform will be built in open source
 under GPLv3 license'. It is pointed out that that may be too
 restrictive, as projects being included in the funding might already
 be under development under GPLv2. What do you think?

Just in case: if there's any work on Potlatch (which I doubt),  
Potlatch is public domain, and I would obviously prefer that it stays  
that way. So in the case of anything being added to Potlatch under  
the GPL, I'll probably end up replacing it with a PD equivalent...  
which would be a shame, as I'd rather spend the time adding new  
features.

cheers
Richard
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Houses of cards

2008-02-21 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 To me at least, it seems obvious what Rob says. If you have something
 that is not copyrighted, and you give it someone [A] under a contract,
 and that person breaches te contract and publishes the data, then
 whatever you gave him is up for grabs by anyone [B] as they're not  
 party to the contract.

4.7 in ODC-Database says that, when that happens, a new  
relationship/contract is established between OSM and person B. It's  
direct licensing, not sub-licensing.

So person B is party to the contract, but you have the problem that  
they have not explicitly agreed to the contract. It's therefore assent  
by usage, aka browse-wrap, rather than the more watertight click-wrap.  
That's not ideal though it is, as far as I can tell, inevitable.

Nonetheless, browse-wrap contracts _can_ potentially be valid if done  
right  
(http://www.ecomputerlaw.com/articles/show_article.php?article=2006_clickwrap_and_browsewrap_agreements
 - hey, written by a lawyer). And there's still copyright protection, which as 
per prior post, may even apply in the  
US.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk Digest, Vol 19, Issue 1

2008-03-01 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Rob Myers wrote:

 John Wilbanks wrote:

 ps - Those of you interested in copyleft and freedom might want to
 interview Stallman on this issue as well.

 I tend not to agree with him on non-software issues but I would be  
 very
 interested to know what he thinks, particularly since he has just been
 through a major copyleft licence revision process.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog posting arguing against share- 
alike/copyleft (I won't draw a distinction for the purpose of this  
mail) for geodata, largely on the grounds that there was no boundary  
drawn (by CC-BY-SA in particular) between source data (geodata) and  
finished product (map etc.).

Someone took it on themselves to e-mail this to RMS and then forward  
me his reply, which was strongly pro-copyleft for geodata. His  
opinion (IIRC) was roughly that maps should be share-alike anyway, so  
he didn't see the problem that I claimed.

But then my opinions are pretty much opposite to his on everything  
anyway, so that's no great surprise.

I believe Steve has had some contact with him in the past - there's a  
great So... open maps gag in Steve's talk at http:// 
www.opengeodata.org/?p=86 .

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] import of dataset for new zealand

Robin Paulson wrote:

 On 18/03/2008, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Robin Paulson wrote:

 (c) Crown Copyright

 w00t, Robin found his Shift key! ;)

 thanks, incredibly constructive. haven't you got something better to do?

What, something better than having a sense of humour? No, probably not.

Alternatively, you could respond to the seven lines of constructive,  
substantive suggestion I made below that. But - oh look - you appear  
to have snipped that.

Meanwhile, I'll get back to a second consecutive evening of  
unconstructive coding on Potlatch.

Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] import of dataset for new zealand

Robin Paulson wrote:

 i ignore people's suggestions when their first response is something
 in that tone. maybe if you want your point to be taken seriously you
 should make it in a serious way?

'k. Personally I find it more helpful to assess people's suggestions  
according to the value of the suggestion, but I may be out of line here.

Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License update

Dominic Hargreaves wrote:

 I haven't been following recent OSM licence debates at all, but why  
 not also offer the choice of licensing contributions under the  
 PDDL[1] also? This does not prevent people from including such  
 contributions in an ODL-licensed dataset.

 This would effectively supercede the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
 index.php/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain
 page.

Yep, we've been considering exactly that and will hopefully be able to  
offer it as a further option.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update

Charles Basenga Kiyanda wrote:

 I'm also wondering. How can one legally agree to release a  
 contribution under a license which is unfinished? Or am I  
 misunderstanding the situation and the ODL is in fact done?

Technically speaking the user would be licensing their contributions  
under the ODC Factual Info Licence  
(http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/),
 to which no changes are  
proposed.

The FIL is in essence a PD-style licence; but (if the community  
approves a change to ODBL) OSM would only republish these  
contributions under the terms of ODBL, thereby providing the  
share-alike/attribution-style protections.

As I alluded in my reply to Dom's e-mail earlier, users could also  
_additionally_ permit OSM to republish their contributions as public  
domain. This would essentially be formalising the wiki PD-user  
initiative.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse Geocoding

2008-04-03 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 What's your opinion? And would it change should the proposed new  
 license
 get adopted?

a. It's a bit of a moot point, because CC-BY-SA doesn't force you to  
distribute; so if the company generates the invoice and sends it to  
their customers, who don't distribute it any further, the matter  
doesn't arise.

b. I tend to agree with you that a minuscule extract can't be protected.

c. Under ODL (the proposed licence) you're not really creating a  
derivative database - at the very most you're creating an integrated  
experience - so the sharealike isn't triggered. ODL doesn't really  
infect things that aren't data(bases), such as an invoice.

d. To be safe I'd suggest an acknowledgement to OSM somewhere on the  
invoice; again, I suspect that b. means you may not even need that,  
but it's good practice anyway.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse Geocoding

2008-04-04 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:

 It means that CC isn't here to overcome local copyright law. So, if  
 your local
 jurisdiction has a fair use right (e.g. US), you can apply it, no  
 matter the
 CC license. The same applies for citation rights, private copy,  
 parody, etc
 etc in other jurisdictions.

Absolutely - and also for the extent to which rights can be claimed  
over small quantities, or indeed any quantities, of data.

http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf (EU) and
http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/pubs/copyright39.pdf (US and EU)
are both essential reading.

That's why, if a share-alike licence is to work for data, it needs to  
be one expressly written for contract, database right, and copyright  
- which the Open Database Licence is. CC-BY-SA is a suitable licence  
for creative works but OSM's data isn't primarily a creative work.

cheers
Richard
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

2008-04-07 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Michael Collinson wrote:

 Other than that, well, I think we both share the same opinion that
 the current license is just unworkable full stop! :-)

There's probably not a lot of point making a big song and dance about  
attribution at present. In a month or two's time, when we're ready to  
vote on adopting the Open Database Licence, it'll become clearer.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication

2008-04-07 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Tim Sheerman-Chase wrote:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Out_of_copyright

 Is that interpretation about the FIRST year of publication definitely
 correct? Or should it be the year of last update? Has this been
 discussed before?

The FIRST is pretty meaningless. The 1954 revision of a map was  
first published in 1954. The 1959 revision of a map was first  
published in 1959... and so on. All that means is that a simple  
reprint doesn't create a new copyright.

Where the wiki page says:

Consider this actual example for OS 2.5 inch map NZ25 (edition code  
B/): Made and published by the Director General of the Ordnance  
Survey, Chessington, 1954. Reprinted with corrections 1959. The date  
of first publication is by definition the stated date of publication  
and for this mapsheet is 1954 (not 1959, which indicates it is only a  
reprint made in 1959). Thus, for this mapsheet Crown Copyright will  
have expired at 24.00UTC December 31st 2004, even though it shows  
information correct as of 1959.

...then I believe it's wrong. It's not only a reprint made in 1959,  
it's a reprint with corrections, and if those corrections are  
substantial enough to be copyrightable, then a new copyright applies  
from 1959.

The section in question was written by a contributor signing  
themselves Geo and with no other changes to the OSM wiki to their  
name.

I'll update it.

FWIW, I've always erred very much on the side of caution for the NPE  
scans, using 50 years after the last possible date as the cut-off.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse Geocoding

2008-04-08 Thread Richard Fairhurst

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:34:33 +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 El Viernes, 4 de Abril de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 escribió:
 There is no „minimal size of data” for the CC-BY-SA to apply.  
 Hence all
 „viral SA” elements are triggered.
 Yes, there is.
 No. The CC-BY-SA still applies. There is no clause in the CC-BY-SA
 claiming data has to have this or that amount.

There doesn't need to be. CC-BY-SA essentially works through  
copyright and copyright, in the EU at least, does not subsist in  
minimal amounts of factual data. (There is an argument to say that it  
doesn't subsist in larger amounts of factual data, which is why  
database right exists.)

cheers
Richard
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Meaning of

2008-04-30 Thread Richard Fairhurst

[moved to legal-talk]

Jeffrey Martin wrote:

 First is that someone can include public domain material
 in their own work and not tell the reader. The reader then does not 
 know
 that they can copy or make derivative works from those public domain 
 portions
  without permission.

 Second, derivative works are now under a new copyright and no longer 
 free (libre).

It's well-trodden ground, but the point is really that those of us with 
a strong PD ethos actually don't see either of the above as a problem. 
The first can, of course, be solved by an attribution-only licence 
which is otherwise very close to PD.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Newbie question - restrictions on the use of OpenStreetMap data.

2008-04-30 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Greg Mitchell wrote:

Apologies for the newbie question, but could anyone tell me (or indeed
 point me at a relevant discussion thread in the archives) what the
 restrictions are on the use of OpenStreetMap data?

In particular, can the data be used for commercial services or trials,
 and if so under what conditions?  What kind of licence is applied to the
 data?

Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0.

Basically means:

a) freely copiable;
b) you have to give credit to OSM;
c) anything you create using OSM data needs to be distributed under  
the same terms.

We are considering changing to a different licence, the Open Database  
Licence, which offers better protection, and more clarity about the  
definition of anything you create using OSM data.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Legal_FAQ
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License

cheers
Richard



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please enable commercial use

2008-05-07 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Sebastian Spaeth wrote:

 Frederik Ramm wrote:
 I think the biggest problem for commercial users is probably the fact
 that they can't get legal info from us - if they ask can we do X
 then our response will always be read the license and ask a lawyer.

 I agree, that is very unsatifactory. It is even inconvenient to me as a
 private person, and it is a killer argument for commercial firms.

One of the things (personally) I'd like to see out of the licence 
change process is a clear set of agreed FAQs and use cases.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please enable commercial use

2008-05-07 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Peter Miller wrote:

 I realise that the OSMF is taking external legal advice at the moment, but
 progress seems very slow

Progress is not slow, it's just that it's not always possible to  
publicly communicate it at every turn. If you find that not knowing  
frustrates you, you could maybe stand for election to OSMF next year. :)

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch

2008-05-22 Thread Richard Fairhurst

[cc:ed to legal-talk]

Andy Allan wrote:

 That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and
 haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they
 explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived
 works.

Probably the biggest thing I've learned about copyright since getting  
involved with OSM is how easy it is to overstate your rights as  
copyright holder. That's not really too surprising for those of us  
from the UK, which has a very maximalist attitude to geodata copyright  
(or at least the OS does, and it shouts loudest): if you come from the  
States you'll have a different take on these things.

I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce definitively on OAM, as  
I've not researched it particularly deeply. But I'd be reasonably  
certain that iCubed's colour correction in itself doesn't qualify as  
copyright-worthy for the purposes of tracing, so there's no issue in  
deriving from their flavour of Landsat. It's a bit like the NPE scans  
where I say you can trace from these without restriction - that's  
not me being nice (well, partly :) ), that's a recognition that the  
acts of scanning and rectification haven't created a new copyright  
over the geodata.

(The severable improvement stuff may be relevant here. Maybe.  
Someone who knows remotely wtf they're talking about will be able to  
do better than me.)

With the non-Landsat OAM images, the same argument can be had. Does  
rectification against Google create a new copyright? I can see an  
argument either way: a year ago I'd have said yes it does, now I'm  
leaning a bit more towards no it doesn't. But it really comes down  
to how cautious/paranoid you are, and OSM always takes the  
ultra-cautious route, which is why Steve's asked them to be removed  
for now.

(It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or  
rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS  
traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.)

Oh yeah, and then you have to think about contracts. Let's not even go there.


Side-issue: the discussion at WhereCamp about are Google and  
Microsoft killing the ecosystem? looks really interesting - maybe  
someone who was there could post or blog about it. But, you know, a  
really great way for them to nurture the ecosystem - which is  
ultimately in their interests - would be if they could give  
definitive, permissive answers to things like this. Is anyone asking?  
Should we? (Even better still, they could do a Yahoo with their aerial  
imagery - yeah, I know, oink oink flap flap.)

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch

2008-05-22 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Steve Hill wrote:

 Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well?  I haven't seen
 anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database,
 accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the
 CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too.

They're not explicitly licensed otherwise, but it's very, very  
debatable whether they cross the threshold to be copyrightable.

[suggest follow-ups to legal-talk]

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?

2008-07-01 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:

 At least that was the idea when the ODbL and OFIL licenses came along. I'm
 eager to review the modifications and changes done to those licenses.

...which I hope should be at SOTM at the very latest!

With particular relevance to this question, there is a new section 4.7:

4.7 Reverse Engineering. For the avoidance of doubt, Using the whole  
or a Substantial part of the Data to produce a work (a produced  
work), and then re-creating the whole or a Substantial part of the  
Data from the produced work comes under the terms of this Licence.


On a wider note, I don't intend to stand for reelection to OSMF this  
summer, and it would be great if one or two people with the energy to  
take this forward were to present themselves for election.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Remove FRom List

2008-10-03 Thread Richard Fairhurst

On 3 Oct 2008, at 16:38, Ed wrote:

 Please remove me from this mailing list.

Please use the link at the bottom of every message, http:// 
lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk , to remove yourself.

Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution?

2008-10-06 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 There is one other thing I would hope the new license addresses,
 which is very unclear at the moment: When does something count as
 published?

4.2 Notices. You must, if You publicly Use by any means and in any  
form, this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part  
of a Collective Database: [...]

4.4. Share Alike. a. Any Derivative Database You publicly Use by any  
means and in any form, must be only under the terms of: i. This  
Licence; ii. A later version of this Licence; iii. A compatible  
licence.

4.5... c. Use of a Derivative Database wholly internally to an  
organisation is not to the public and therefore does not fall under  
the requirements of Section 4.4.

And from the preamble:

'Use' - As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by  
Database Rights or copyright and neighbouring rights whether in the  
original medium or any other; and includes modifying the Database as  
may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format.

So my reading is that, at present, wholly internally to an  
organisation would not include off-site contractors of the type  
you describe.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution?

2008-10-06 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 By speaking of public on one hand and wholly internally on the
 other, the license seems to omit those cases where (a) the use is  
 still
 internal but involves work from someone else, like the print shop  
 or the
 auditing example, and those where (b) the use is not really  
 public but
 still takes the form of distributing a product to one or more  
 people or
 organisations.

Yes, it's a good point. Suggest you formally submit the request to  
OSMF, maybe quoting Rob's GPL example.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

2008-10-10 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Mikel Maron wrote:


--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified.  If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
format.  I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available.
If this were about code, the belief would be that every time  
someone compiled that code into running software, that binary would  
need to be freely available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for  
software. But you would have this for data?


If the ODL is unclear on this point (I'm not sure) than it should  
be clarified.


Derivative Database – Any translation, adaptation, arrangement, or  
any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the  
Data. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re- 
utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Data in a new Database.


[...]

Use –  As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by  
Database Rights or copyright and neighbouring rights whether in the  
original medium or any other; and includes modifying the Database as  
may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format.


[...]

4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You publicly Use a Derivative  
Database You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database  
a copy in a machine readable form of:


a. The entire Derivative Database; or
	b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database  
offered under this Licence,


including any additional Data, that make up all the differences  
between the Database and the Derivative Database.


The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must  
be available at no more than a reasonable production cost for  
physical distributions and free of charge if distributed over the  
internet.


[end quote]


It looks pretty unambiguous to me that the PostGIS version _would_ be  
classed as a derivative database (includes modifying the Database as  
may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or  
format) and therefore must be made available.


cheers
Richard___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

2008-10-10 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like within a reasonable
 time frame to alleviate the problem for people who try to process
 current data.

It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not  
you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in  
that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole  
derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you update with  
a minute diff; you could simply write e-mail me here for a copy and  
supply it on demand.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

2008-10-11 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Dair Grant wrote:

 Richard Fairhurst wrote:

 b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database  
 offered
under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make  
 up all the
differences between the Database and the Derivative Database.

 Assuming I choose option (b), how does this work if the alterations  
 are all
 subtractions?
 [...]
 But it does seem a bit like jumping through hoops, when it would be  
 simpler
 to say I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal places or even  
 the DD is
 a subset of the information in version X of the D, and here's a  
 copy of
 that.

IMO (and insert all the other abbreviations here), I truncated all  
coordinates to 4 decimal places is a valid diff. If people want to  
get pissy about machine readable, then supply the diff as a Perl  
script which comprises some XML parsing and a load of sprintf. ;)

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

2008-10-12 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:

 On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
  perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
  months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new
  licence published - a lot of this has already been addressed, and
  thus it's ultimately wasted effort which could productively be spent
  on finding the failings with the _current_ draft.

 So do we have the new licence? Do we have the current draft?

 Where has this been addressed? What has been the results?

 How is what we are talking about wasted effort?

 Are you saying we shouldn't discuss things until we see the current  
 licence?
 Isn't this what was happening before this discussion started? People
 saying oh, who knows! It's all up in the air!

 Do we, as a community, by discussing these things, have no influence
 on the direction of the future of OSM?

 Has everything been decided already by the OSMF?

Goodness me, that's an enormously confrontational-sounding posting,  
and, er, utterly wrong to boot. I thought I'd made it clear, but in  
nice bullet points (remembering that I am no longer on OSMF, because  
I didn't have the time it merited, and I didn't want to continue  
slowing down the fine bunch of people who are on it):

* I would like OSMF to publish the current licence
* I say 'wasted effort' only because I know things are being agonised  
over which _have_ already been sorted (by Steve, Andy and me when  
working with Jordan last year)
* This is why I would like OSMF to publish the licence, so that  
people can apply their minds to the things that still need sorting,  
not to the things that have already been sorted
* I am not saying you shouldn't discuss things, or we as a  
community have no influence, or anyt of that, I am saying OSMF  
should publish the licence
* IMHO OSMF should publish the licence

cheers
Richard

P.S. did I mention something about publishing the licence?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License

2008-10-13 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Joseph Gentle wrote:

 The license is changing
 frustration is waning
 we can all see
 what the new license will be
 Some terms need explaining

There once was a lawyer from Texas
who tackled the issues that vex us
CC is contrived
when defining derived
So let's switch before arguing wrecks us


Am I the only one who sees the subject line and thinks of Badger  
Badger Badger?

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] My Notes on the brief for the proposed licence

2008-10-17 Thread Richard Fairhurst

I've reverted the Open Data License page on the wiki to something near  
its original form, as the point of it (to provide a quick, one-stop  
comparison between CC-BY-SA and the ODBL) was getting lost amid all  
the 'brief' stuff.

Peter's brief initiative is now at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Brief_for_proposed_OSM_licence
and is linked prominently from the original page.

Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through

2008-10-17 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 If either the current license draft or the brief brief mean that in
 the future, OSM data may only be offered after displaying a note to
 the user and requesting him to click ok (or the equivalent in other
 media), then this would be a significant drawback compared to today's
 situation - a drawback so big that it might cancel out the advantages.

For data, ODBL without clickthrough is more enforceable than CC-BY-SA  
without clickthrough. IMHO of course.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through

2008-10-17 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 So if we can't get rid of the click-through is not the question.

 Replace it by if we cannot find a license that works without  
 clicktrough.

Well, there ain't none.

Sorry, I'm over-simplifying. But the question is really simple, it's  
just the answer that's complicated.

In some jurisdictions you have statutory protection for geodata under  
copyright law and, sometimes, neighbouring rights (e.g. EU database  
law). So everything's easy.

In other jurisdictions, you have to rely, to a greater or lesser  
extent, on contract. And there's no clever wording, no find a  
licence, that can get around that. Usage of the database is  
regulated by statute, by contract, or by judicious application of a  
baseball bat; they're the only options.

Our data, along with that of every geodata company in the world, will  
be made available in contract-biased jurisdictions (like the US).  
Does TeleAtlas require click-through to work? No. Does Navteq? No.

So does ODBL? No. Come on.

It's all about appetite for risk. OSMF some time last year took a  
view, subject to consultation, that click-through would improve  
enforceability without a deleterious effect on usability. You  
disagree. That's fine. On balance, and after several months' thought,  
I think I probably do, too.

But Jochen, when you say So I know that it is not enforcable unless  
both parties have agreed and start quoting Wikipedia, with respect,  
that's the worst type of barrack-room lawyer. Agreed isn't that  
simple. Read the summaries of the Register.com vs Verio case I cited  
earlier. That is a contract being enforced, in a contract-only  
jurisdiction, _without_ anyone clicking I agree. It's a case  
relating to repeated extraction from a big database - actually quite  
similar to OSM.


I'd also point out that, of all the reasons to switch from CC-BY-SA  
to ODBL, enforceability is certainly no higher than third in my list. :)

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data

2008-10-20 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 The more complex thing is that some jurisdictions make it really
 difficult for you to give away your rights so generously.

Which is a splendid reason to use WTFPL, reproduced here in its  
entirety:

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.


 From its FAQ (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/):

Isn’t this license basically public domain?

There is no such thing as putting a work in the public domain, you  
America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies  
with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether  
someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled  
to put his own work in the public domain.


cheers
Richard
who has not quite been dead for 70 years
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data

2008-10-21 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Joseph Gentle wrote:

 We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
 we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.

Yeah you will - a single PD disclaimer of rights (PDDL, CC0,  
Wikipedia-like, WTFPL, doesn't really matter), with an  
attribution/disclaimer page somewhere on the web for all those bulk  
imports.

cheers
Richard


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle

2008-10-22 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Joseph Gentle wrote:

 It seems to me like everyone wins.

+1 to that entire message.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle

2008-10-22 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Rob Myers wrote:

 Community projects should not serve as random acts of kindness or
 distributed potlatch for corporations and local government. They
 should serve the community.

I _do_ like the fact that people in OSM are starting to figure out why  
Potlatch is called Potlatch.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2008-October/004418.html
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2008-October/004421.html
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2008-October/004422.html

Random acts of kindness ftw.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle

2008-10-22 Thread Richard Fairhurst

bvh wrote:

If you think Apple wouldn't do that just look at webkit. I am quite
convinced that had that one been pd they would just have forked it and
never looked back...

Actually, WebKit - which is licensed LGPL and BSD, _not_ GPL - is a
good example of how liberal licences can work. See:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/06/12/ars-at-wwdc-interview-with-lars-knoll-creator-of-khtml

http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2007/07/23/the-unforking-of-kdes-khtml-and-webkit

In brief:

1. Apple takes KHTML
2. Apple adds 8 zillion features and does only what is required by the
share-alike licence (LGPL), i.e. making the source available in its
rawest form
3. KHTML devs, and others, complain that the resulting code bomb
cannot be easily integrated back into Konqueror. Cue outraged Slashdot
articles and so on
4. Under community pressure, Apple changes its practices, and works to
reintegrate (unfork) the code, _even_though_they_don't_have_to_
5. QtWebKit now exists for KDE, KHTML is significantly better, half
the world is using an open-source standards-compliant browser, etc.
etc. etc.
6. We all live happily ever after, apart from maybe the IE devs ;)

So share-alike itself actually ain't that helpful if the person
doesn't really want to contribute back.

But if you use community pressure, rather than trying to get medieval
on their licensing ass, you can get a great result - whatever the
licence.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Announcement] new mailing list: legal-general

2008-10-31 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Peter Miller wrote:

 Can I suggest that the 'Use Cases' page I created is used as a  
 place for all
 Use Cases, including those being discussed by PD advocates? I am  
 suggesting
 this because it will help keep a connection between the different  
 proposals.
 If you add the Use Cases that makes the SA licence struggle then so  
 much the
 better.

Hm. I think the WTFPL FAQ probably answers Use Cases for PD best.

Q. By the way, with the WTFPL, can I also...
A. Oh but yes, of course you can.

Q. But can I...
A. Yes you can.

Q. Can...
A. Yes!

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of OSM-Logo (was: Creation of a user box in wikipedia user profiles)

2008-11-14 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Johann H. Addicks wrote:

 The copyright of the OSM-Logo itself is CC-sa-by?

Matt Amos drew the original one, cc:ed.

When I was on the OSM Foundation board last year there was some  
discussion about trademarking it. I'm not sure where that is now  
though - anyone from the board here?

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of OSM-Logo (was: Creation of a user box in wikipedia user profiles)

2008-11-14 Thread Richard Fairhurst


80n wrote:


Richard
Logo: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?trademark=2500155
Name: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?trademark=2500154


Ah, good, thanks. I presume the application is on behalf of OSMF?

cheers
Richard___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GPS traces and copying of facts

2009-01-09 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Nic Roets wrote:
 It has been said on this list that facts cannot be copyrighted. 
 And IMHO gps traces are facts. Does this mean we can use data 
 from any of the sites mention below ? Or are gps traces subject 
 to the same type of copyright as photos ?

In Britain and several other jurisdictions, the question is whether there's
enough originality or creativity in the work.

If you're just driving to work anyway, and you stick a GPS receiver on your
dashboard to get the tracklog, I doubt the result merits copyright
protection. But if you go out and survey an entire housing estate
purposefully, does it? I'm not sure. In US law I suspect not (Rural vs
Feist, as usual). In the UK it might.

There's also the question (in the EU) of database right over a collection of
separate tracks, but database right probably doesn't apply to one single
track.

(One of my ongoing regrets about the whole PD-vs-copyleft thing is that
we've missed the opportunity, as the first and biggest open collaborative
data project in the world, to make a stand and say facts are unambiguously
free: for edge cases like this, we should be playing the good guys, not
trying to assert copyright over something marginal. If we'd been PD from the
start, this would have set a precedent for others to do so - exactly what
copyleft tries to achieve, but without the hassle of the licence getting in
the way. Still, all water under the bridge.)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/GPS-traces-and-copying-of-facts-tp21358576p21372851.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licensing working group report

2009-01-19 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Mikel Maron wrote:
 So what's next? A technical team meeting will be held this week 
 to discuss the technical implementation. Next week we will hold 
 another licensing working group meeting, where we'll produced 
 the final integrated plan of license and technical process, and 
 timeline for moving to the new license. We'll have another 
 update following next week's meeting.

Sounds excellent; glad to hear of progress and thanks for keeping us
informed. And good luck.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/licensing-working-group-report-tp21484779p21543549.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Data Licence (Re: 23rd Dec board meeting)


sward wrote:
 By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts 
 for review, OSMF have forced the process to involve rounds 
 of consultation.

It's not OSMF's licence. It is a third-party licence which OSM is
considering and on which OSMF has sponsored some work. To my knowledge
Jordan has always been very willing to receive comments and suggestions.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/23rd-Dec-board-meeting-tp21639674p21650895.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22

andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is
the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible
with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So,
say I've uploaded a lot of information based on wikipedia,
conscious that I'm uploading under an alike license.
Now that the license changes, I would be obliged to leave
even if I agree with the principles of the new license
because I cannot agree to relicense data that is not my own
(derived works).

Depends on the facts/data in question. I'd be interested to hear what they
are, but strongly suspect that they would not be deserving of any copyright
protection in the first place, and isolated facts on Wikipedia are not
arranged in a sufficiently structured manner to merit EU database right
protection.

By the same token, I don't have any qualms about relicensing information
that I've found via CC-licensed photos on geograph.org.uk. If I see a photo
on Geograph of a road sign pointing west saying Whissendine 5 with a
National Byway sign underneath it, I judge that the National Byway follows
that road. The act of taking a (CC-licensed) photograph of that sign does
not give copyright protection to the information expressed in the photo nor
restrict the extraction of that information, because the photographer has
not invested any creative/original work in placing the sign there.

(Consumers of OSM data are a different matter because in most cases,
including Wikipedia, collective work provisions apply.)

cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-report%2C-2009-01-22-tp21611753p21651043.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Data Licence (Re: 23rd Dec board meeting)


sward wrote:
 Communications with Jordan have apparently broken down.

Mikel's e-mail of 15th Jan, which post-dates the minutes you're quoting
from, said Jordan had been involved in a meeting with them the previous day,
and was currently in discussion with Wilson Semprini (/monty_python).

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/23rd-Dec-board-meeting-tp21639674p21651812.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Data Licence (Re: 23rd Dec board meeting)