Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/6 Alex (Maxious) Sadleir : > Why would we need a fork? No current Australian datasets are CC-BY-SA > (or NC or ND), only CC-BY. ABS data, QLD boundaries and ACT POIs are > "Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY)". You can > commercialise and not share the data if you really wish. > The risk is that future datasets may have the share-alike attributes > and they would not be compatible with ODbL. Apparently that license change only just occurred. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote: >> I'm generally not that overly concerned with the rest of the world, >> but will be really upset with how this will push Australia backwards, >> the ABS data and other datasets recently released by the verious >> Australian governments has been very good in helping to push things >> forward in low denisty areas and there is a lot of data that will just >> up and vanish if they enforce this. >> >> I'm not an OSMF member and have been getting more and more annoyed >> with the way things are headed by the idealists. >> >> I have the resources (hardware/bandwidth) at my disposal to do >> something if I absolutely have to about Australia. I am really hoping >> it won't need to come to that outcome because it will fork resources >> considerably as the camps diverge. > > > > I too am seeing a fork in Australia as a result of this. Why would we need a fork? No current Australian datasets are CC-BY-SA (or NC or ND), only CC-BY. ABS data, QLD boundaries and ACT POIs are "Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY)". You can commercialise and not share the data if you really wish. The risk is that future datasets may have the share-alike attributes and they would not be compatible with ODbL. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/6 Elizabeth Dodd : > I too am seeing a fork in Australia as a result of this. At this stage it seems very early in the debate about if the new license should be adopted, anything else will depend on the outcome of that. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/5 Liz : > > Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are > > 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense > > their data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go > > forward into the new licence. > > I wonder if this will be the final straw that leads to the data being > forked. > > There generally seems to be 2 camps in most debates like this, you > have the idealists, and the pragmatists eg Debian=idealists, > Ubuntu=Pragmatists. > > I'm generally not that overly concerned with the rest of the world, > but will be really upset with how this will push Australia backwards, > the ABS data and other datasets recently released by the verious > Australian governments has been very good in helping to push things > forward in low denisty areas and there is a lot of data that will just > up and vanish if they enforce this. > > I'm not an OSMF member and have been getting more and more annoyed > with the way things are headed by the idealists. > > I have the resources (hardware/bandwidth) at my disposal to do > something if I absolutely have to about Australia. I am really hoping > it won't need to come to that outcome because it will fork resources > considerably as the camps diverge. I too am seeing a fork in Australia as a result of this. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/5 Liz : > Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are > 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their > data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward > into the new licence. I wonder if this will be the final straw that leads to the data being forked. There generally seems to be 2 camps in most debates like this, you have the idealists, and the pragmatists eg Debian=idealists, Ubuntu=Pragmatists. I'm generally not that overly concerned with the rest of the world, but will be really upset with how this will push Australia backwards, the ABS data and other datasets recently released by the verious Australian governments has been very good in helping to push things forward in low denisty areas and there is a lot of data that will just up and vanish if they enforce this. I'm not an OSMF member and have been getting more and more annoyed with the way things are headed by the idealists. I have the resources (hardware/bandwidth) at my disposal to do something if I absolutely have to about Australia. I am really hoping it won't need to come to that outcome because it will fork resources considerably as the camps diverge. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On 05/12/2009, at 11:30 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > For clarity... the OSM Foundation is not some evil group... > The OSMF is open, anyone from the community can join. The OSMF Board > is democratically elected from the OSMF membership. If anyone who isn't a OSMF member wants to read the discussion, it's available in the archives, with two posts at the end of November and everything so far this month: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/ As expected, there is a fair amount of disagreement on whether the ODbL is good, whether the contributor terms are good, whether pro-ODbL people are trying to push it though before things have been sorted out, and whether anti-ODbL people are full of stop-energy and just like to complain. > Some of the reasons why we which to move away from CC BY-SA: > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable For reference, the two links that are going to be sent to us, which anyone can edit, are: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/5 Liz : > Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new licence. > It is designed around European law, and gives "database protection" which is > not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High Court > case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded "protection". > The ODbL does not require European Database Directive protection. Section 2 of the license defines the 3 pillars used; Copyright, EU Database Directive and Contract Law. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/5 80n <80n...@gmail.com>: > The OSM Foundation can't "force" anyone to relicense their existing data For clarity... the OSM Foundation is not some evil group... The OSMF is open, anyone from the community can join. The OSMF Board is democratically elected from the OSMF membership. OSMF Board: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Officers_%26_Board Disclosure: I am an OSMF member, part of the sysadmin team and a Licensing Working Group member. (And failed being elected to the board 2 years ago.) > ...the OSM Foundation owns the servers that run the site and if the change > is approved then they will stop accepting contributions on that site unless > you agree to the new terms (the OSMF Contributor Terms). > > This is likely to be disruptive. > Unfortunately any licensing change would be disruptive. Some of the reasons why we which to move away from CC BY-SA: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On 05/12/2009, at 10:29 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community. > Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not > one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately. > However, I believe that the ODbL constitutes both a licence and a > contract (especially in jurisdictions where copyright protection is > insufficient). So while you might not have a claim for copyright > infringement in protecting OSM data, you would still be able to assert > a breach of contract under one of the clauses such as the obligation > to Share Alike. Databases in Australia actually have more protection than in somewhere like the US, because they have their own inherent copyright. But that protection is *very* different to what EU database rights are, particularly in light of the High Courts ruling on what is "substantial". The biggest problem is that no-one knows exactly how it works any more, and how much of Desktop Marketing was reversed - lawyers are divided and we won't know until we get more court rulings based on the fall-out. > Oh dear. I thought it was going to be an active contributor vote (you > had to have X edits in the last Y months) but looking at the threads > on osmf-talk it looks like that disappeared. No, the vote whether to re-license is only for OSMF members. Future re-licensing done under the powers granted by the proposed contributor terms will require a vote of OSMF members and a vote of active contributors. Non-members do have some say though, you can refuse to agree to the re-licensing and contributor terms - if enough people reject them or can't be contacted, then I believe that the OSMF board might consider keeping CC in use, but that would require a fairly large amount of people to do so. As I understand if you reject the ODbL+terms, then any way/POII/whatever you have ever touched will be removed or reverted to the oldest non-acceptor's edit. I have no idea how they're planning on tracing the history through way merges and splits, but apparently that's how it's going to work. Unless we get close to 100% acceptance (which isn't likely, or maybe even possible) then it's going to severely screw up the data. The biggest problem I see is not with the ODbL itself (although I have reservations about it, particularly around the use of contract law), but the contributor terms. Currently: * We can import data licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, for example most/all of data.australia.gov.au stuff * We may not be able to use data from derived databases, because (arguably) CC-BY-SA isn't enforceable With ODbL+contributor terms: * We won't be able to import CC-BY(-SA) data unless the copyright holder agrees to the terms letting us relicense it without their approval * We may not be able to use data from derived databases, because even though people have to release it, they don't have to agree to the terms. I fail to see how there is any benefit from moving to ODbL, and so will be voting against it too. My 2c. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Liz wrote: > > There has been a great number of mails on osmf-talk about an upcoming > vote on > > the database licence. > But no notice on the site or wiki. I suppose it isn't "official" > discussion. > > It is official. The vote is for members of the OSM Foundation, not for ordinary contributors. The OSM Foundation can't "force" anyone to relicense their existing data but... ...the OSM Foundation owns the servers that run the site and if the change is approved then they will stop accepting contributions on that site unless you agree to the new terms (the OSMF Contributor Terms). This is likely to be disruptive. 80n > > Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new > licence. > > It is designed around European law, and gives "database protection" which > is > > not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High > Court > > case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded "protection". > Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community. > Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not > one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately. > However, I believe that the ODbL constitutes both a licence and a > contract (especially in jurisdictions where copyright protection is > insufficient). So while you might not have a claim for copyright > infringement in protecting OSM data, you would still be able to assert > a breach of contract under one of the clauses such as the obligation > to Share Alike. > > > I've been thinking about the imports from ABS and the Qld government. > That > > data is licensed CC-by-SA and would have to be *removed* from OSM as we > cannot > > negotiate with ABS and Qld for the new, non-existent licence with no > basis in > > Australian law. This would make a whacking hole in our data and make our > map > > look like an empty shell. > > If we're working on the assumption that Nine vs. IceTV applies to > geographical databases and there's no copyright protection for them, > why do we have to care about licences at all in Australia anymore? > Certainly, there was some discussion about those licences even being > appropriate for releasing those databases (it was suggested that CC0 > or public domain might be better). > I wouldn't bet on Nine vs. IceTV applying to every collection of raw > data and I agree that I would oppose a licence change that would lead > us to have to renegotiate every data import... > > > > > Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are > > 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense > their > > data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go > forward > > into the new licence. > Oh dear. I thought it was going to be an active contributor vote (you > had to have X edits in the last Y months) but looking at the threads > on osmf-talk it looks like that disappeared. > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Liz wrote: > There has been a great number of mails on osmf-talk about an upcoming vote on > the database licence. But no notice on the site or wiki. I suppose it isn't "official" discussion. > Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new licence. > It is designed around European law, and gives "database protection" which is > not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High Court > case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded "protection". Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community. Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately. However, I believe that the ODbL constitutes both a licence and a contract (especially in jurisdictions where copyright protection is insufficient). So while you might not have a claim for copyright infringement in protecting OSM data, you would still be able to assert a breach of contract under one of the clauses such as the obligation to Share Alike. > I've been thinking about the imports from ABS and the Qld government. That > data is licensed CC-by-SA and would have to be *removed* from OSM as we cannot > negotiate with ABS and Qld for the new, non-existent licence with no basis in > Australian law. This would make a whacking hole in our data and make our map > look like an empty shell. If we're working on the assumption that Nine vs. IceTV applies to geographical databases and there's no copyright protection for them, why do we have to care about licences at all in Australia anymore? Certainly, there was some discussion about those licences even being appropriate for releasing those databases (it was suggested that CC0 or public domain might be better). I wouldn't bet on Nine vs. IceTV applying to every collection of raw data and I agree that I would oppose a licence change that would lead us to have to renegotiate every data import... > > Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are > 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their > data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward > into the new licence. Oh dear. I thought it was going to be an active contributor vote (you had to have X edits in the last Y months) but looking at the threads on osmf-talk it looks like that disappeared. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
