[Talk-GB] BTCV Kent Heritage Trees Project
This project looks interesting. BTCV are planning to survey 10,000 trees in Kent using volunteers. I am talking to BTCV about sharing data but it's early days... http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/kent_heritage_tree_project TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is that the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with the current version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4). I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. My reasoning for the incompatibility is as follows: The OS OpenData License [1] clearly states that any sub-licences must include a specific attribution requirement, and must also enforce a similar attribution requirement on any further downstream usage. However, clauses 2 and 3 of the OSM Contributor Terms [2] require mappers to grant particular rights to OSMF for future and past contributions. In particular, these rights are sufficient to give OSMF the ability to release contributions under a licence that need not require any attribution (it need only be free and open). There is no mention in the CTs of enforcing any attribution requirements in possible future OSM licences. (The facts that a vote of contributors are required for such a change, and that OSMF would clearly do their best to remove any infringing content before re-licensing are immaterial here. The right to distribute the data in the future with no attribution requirement is included in the rights grant required by clause 2, but this is not permitted under the terms of the OS OpenData Licence. There is a requirement in the CTs that OSMF will attribute sources, but no requirement for this to be passed on to downstream users by whatever licence OSM data is released under.) It is regrettable that OSMF is placing the burden of working out whether contributed data is compatible with the CTs and licences on individual volunteer mappers. So it's up to you to make your own decision on whether you're able to make the rights grant specified in CTs Clause 2, for any particular source. When you're reading the new terms and considering what to do, you may or may not come to the same conclusion I have done above with regards OS OpenData... As to where this might leave the use of OS OpenData in OSM if I'm right, I'm not sure. A recent post from an LWG member [3] suggests they'd like mappers to be able to use imports / derived content if they are compatible with the current licence as long as they don't overly burden future licence changes, but haven't figured out a formal mechanism for allowing it yet in the CTs. I think it is most unfortunate that OSMF are pushing ahead with these CT changes without clarity on the status of such imports in general, and OS OpenData-derived content in particular. OSMF/LWG are still waiting for a legal review of the OS OpenData licence and how it interacts with ODbL and the CTs. Nevertheless, it seems clear enough to me that OS OpenData is incompatible with the current CTs for the reasons outlined above. I am also unconvinced that the attribution requirements of the OS OpenData Licence are compatible with those of ODbL and DbCL, though that is debated by others. I think we'll have to wait for the outcome of the legal review, and to see if/how LWG will modify the CTs to allow OS OpenData-derived information to be contributed (if this turns out to be necessary and desirable). Robert. [1] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf [2] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005964.html -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert Whittaker (OSM robert.whittaker+osm@... writes: I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs) I wish to put it on record that I have signed up to the ODBL and CTs. I also wish to put it on record that I have contributed mapping based on OS Opendata both before and after signing up. The OSM Foundation and anyone else who thinks they have standing are welcome to take whatever action they think appropriate. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert, On 18 April 2011 14:12, Robert Whittaker wrote: I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. This debate has been trawled over a number of times on this list already. Are you hoping to catch newer subscribers who haven't yet experienced the joy of this debate yet? It is regrettable that OSMF is placing the burden of working out whether contributed data is compatible with the CTs and licences on individual volunteer mappers. As you later state, they aren't. They are seeking legal advice to help contributors. Perhaps they should specifically warn UK users on the web site form that seeks agreement with the CTs until this advice comes in? That might be something to constructively lobby for. I agree that the way the OSMF have gone about this process is regrettable in a number of respects, but I don't see how stirring this up again helps anyone. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert Whittaker wrote: I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the Contributor Terms. As an Oxfordshire mapper of many years' standing, I don't want the task of replacing your edits, post-changeover, to be any harder than it has to be. Please at least afford this little courtesy to your fellow mappers. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Contributor-Terms-vs-OS-OpenData-Licence-tp6283585p6284176.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the Contributor Terms. Did you mean *non*-OS edits? If so could you expand on that please? As an Oxfordshire mapper of many years' standing, I don't want the task of replacing your edits, post-changeover, to be any harder than it has to be. Please at least afford this little courtesy to your fellow mappers. I find it ironic it was the dissenter who bemoan about loss of existing data, yet now it's the assenters. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/2011 15:33, Tom Chance wrote: Robert, On 18 April 2011 14:12, Robert Whittaker wrote: I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. This debate has been trawled over a number of times on this list already. Are you hoping to catch newer subscribers who haven't yet experienced the joy of this debate yet? Indeed it has. However if there's been a conclusive resolution, I've not seen it. If there has been, could you help by referring to it? Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Dave F. wrote: On 18/04/2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the Contributor Terms. Did you mean *non*-OS edits? If so could you expand on that please? Yes. Robert has not agreed to the Contributor Terms with his Robert Whittaker account. Therefore, when the changeover happens, all these contributions will be wiped. If, however, he creates a new account for non-OS contributions, and assents to the terms for that account, those non-OS contributions can be retained. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Contributor-Terms-vs-OS-OpenData-Licence-tp6283585p6284329.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18 April 2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the Contributor Terms. As an Oxfordshire mapper of many years' standing, I don't want the task of replacing your edits, post-changeover, to be any harder than it has to be. Please at least afford this little courtesy to your fellow mappers. Don't worry, I've got no intention of letting my non-OS OpenData edits be deleted from OSM. (And obviously I'd love it if everyone's OS OpenData-derived edits could be kept too. But legally I don't see how this is possible with the current CTs.) My OS OpenData contributions were small in number and were all attributed either in the source tag or in the changeset comments. While I have reservations about the CTs, I'd be happy to sign them for my other edits if/when OSMF figure out a way to separate edits. I'd also be happy to sign if the CTs can be modified to allow OS OpenData, or someone can demonstrate how/why it's ok to contribute OS OpenData under the current CTs. (i.e. if I feel I'm legally able to, I'll sign them -- so please don't blame me for not accepting them at the moment.) LWG are aware of the OS OpenData issue, and I'm sure they'll come up with a suitable way forward in the near future. Until then I'm following the advice I got from an LWG member: ...if one wants to play really safe, decline and wait for developments. Declines are reversible and the matter will need further resolution before we get to the point of preventing such folks from editing. Given the size and number of my non-OS-OpenData contributions, I don't see that there's much point in creating a new account at this stage. Any new edits now would be a small fraction of what I've done previously. And if it turns out OS OpenData isn't allowed at the switch-over, the UK OSM community will have far bigger problems than the loss of my edits. So rather than create a new account, I'm planning to wait to see what OSMF/LWG comes up with in the near future. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I'd just like some clarification on this. I have contributed a very, very small amount of data via OS OpenData (Haslemere and Andover IIRC but such a small amount that it won't take long to re-survey - feel free to delete any nickw edits in those areas with source=OS Open Data) but being such a small amount I *did* accept the CTs. So I take it that now I've signed I can't contribute any more OS stuff? No big deal if so,as almost all my mapping is GPS survey sourced, but would like confirmation that this is indeed the case and there do seem to be slightly differing opinions on this issue. Thanks, Nick -Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: - To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org From: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com Date: 18/04/2011 02:14PM Subject: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is that the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with the current version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Nick Whitelegg wrote: So I take it that now I've signed I can't contribute any more OS stuff? I believe you can and am continuing to use OpenData as often as I did before (that's not very often). Robert believes you can't and has explained why in this thread. there do seem to be slightly differing opinions on this issue. Indeed. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Contributor-Terms-vs-OS-OpenData-Licence-tp6283585p6284608.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert Whittaker (OSM) [mailto:robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com]wrote Sent: 18 April 2011 2:13 PM To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is that the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with the current version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4). I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. My reasoning for the incompatibility is as follows: The OS OpenData License [1] clearly states that any sub-licences must include a specific attribution requirement, and must also enforce a similar attribution requirement on any further downstream usage. If you make sure your OS derived contributions carry the source information then that attribution will be in the OSM db for all to see for ever and a day, regardless of what OSMF does with it in the future under some other free and open format. And yes, I have signed up for the CT's and ODbL. I have no qualms at all about that. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/11 21:59, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: If you make sure your OS derived contributions carry the source information then that attribution will be in the OSM db for all to see for ever and a day, regardless of what OSMF does with it in the future under some other free and open format. Except if someone creates a derivative database based on the main OSM database, and strips out the source tags. Or creates a produced works, which doesn't carry attribution to OSM but not OS. You also violate the CTs. Or am I missing something? TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, TimSC wrote: Except if someone creates a derivative database based on the main OSM database, and strips out the source tags. Or creates a produced works, which doesn't carry attribution to OSM but not OS. You also violate the CTs. I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has been happening. Reality check, anyone? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/11 22:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has been happening. Reality check, anyone? Bye Frederik I actually agree with you Frederik, but the entire project so far overlooks the even bigger problem that CC-by-SA technically demands that every contributor is attributed in every derived work. Given that we ignore that issue, and that OS Opendata is compatible with CC-by and that is always compatible with CC-by-SA, we have just imported OS data into OSM because the larger attribution issue never was solved. So we are all equally guilty. Now along comes ODbL, which was intended to address shortcomings with CC-by-SA. To say we were in technical violation of CC-by-SA doesn't justify us going along with ODbL if ODbL is flawed. If anything, we should strive to be more legally rigorous, not less. We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki [1] for CC attribution. Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over the data (in order to grant OSMF that right too). Also, just because OS has not complained so far is not a reason to continue to abuse their license. The solution, as far as I can see, is to improve attribution requirements (which would mean rewriting the CTs again) or to remove the data. I know Richard thinks Opendata doesn't pose a problem, so there may be other answers... I call for LWG to get their analysis of the Opendata legal situation done ASAP - that might put minds at rest or allow us to get on with fixing the problem. Regards, TimSC [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, TimSC wrote: We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki [1] for CC attribution. Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over the data (in order to grant OSMF that right too). I think that's not correct, at least not for the current version of the contributor terms. Unlimited rights is certainly a gross overstatement. Current CTs only require you to declare that the data you contribute is compatible with the current license regime? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:42 PM, TimSC wrote: On 18/04/11 22:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has been happening. Reality check, anyone? Bye Frederik I actually agree with you Frederik, but the entire project so far overlooks the even bigger problem that CC-by-SA technically demands that every contributor is attributed in every derived work. reasonable to the medium it says in the license. Not every contributor. It would clearly be unreasonable to list tens of thousands of people on a paper map, for example. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Perhaps the best course of action would be for an additional checkbox on the contributor terms page to say 'I have used OS OpenData'. Then people would be able to sign up to support the licence change, if they wish, and it would be up to the legal people at OSMF to decide whether the data from these OS-using accounts is clean, or has to be deleted. But at least then it could be decided once rather than each mapper having to agonize about it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. It's on the Copyright page though http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010. That is, IIRC, what we were required to state. And the original OS OpenData license was meant to be explicitly compatible with Creative Commons licences. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18 April 2011 22:50, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: TimSC wrote: We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki [1] for CC attribution. Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over the data (in order to grant OSMF that right too). I think that's not correct, at least not for the current version of the contributor terms. Unlimited rights is certainly a gross overstatement. Current CTs only require you to declare that the data you contribute is compatible with the current license regime? No, Clause 2 of the CTs requires you to grant OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents... subject only to some limitations on how OSMF may license the OSM database to others. Those limitations do not include any obligation for OSMF to ensure future licences have an attribution clause, and *that* is the problem I'm trying to highlight -- as it appears to me to prevent the use of any data sources that require some form of viral attribution, and specifically OS OpenData. (Even if you take the view that a link to an OSM List of Contributors page satisfies typical attribution requirements (as we currently assume), there is nothing in the CTs to guarantee that future OSM licenses will obligate downstream users to attribute OSM or link back to such a page.) -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, Richard Bullock wrote: It's on the Copyright page though http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010. That is, IIRC, what we were required to state. Well in that case, as long as nobody is planning to remove that, we should be fine with CT/ODbL? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb