Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed anyone!! Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD Sebastian Spaeth: Wikipedia PD Rob Myers: CC Zero (Wikipedia PD) Gustav Foseid: CC Zero / Wikipedia PD According to this, Wikipedia style public domain dedication statement wins. CC Zero is not finished, and therefore cannot be used now. So Wikipedia PD it is?? Is this decision informal enough?? :) PDDL: http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ CC Zero: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCZero Wikipedia PD: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can they use and which they cannot?? Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD. I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public domain for OSM/PD. Simply because it is simple. Public Domain Dedication And License looks too complicated - I think it will scare people off. CC Zero is not finished. Once it is finished, I don't see any reasons why we couldn't later switch to CC Zero, if it turns out to be good. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, 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. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don't relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn't because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it's PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkj+aC0ACgkQj6/6lS/XEIp+nwCeMjkQRU9qTcNNVaIWDYTDalRR 1cwAmwXFNT0lp/jPVbHdEi7x2jBYqrb6 =Ibli -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ 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
Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can they use and which they cannot?? Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD. I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public domain for OSM/PD. Simply because it is simple. Public Domain Dedication And License looks too complicated - I think it will scare people off. CC Zero is not finished. Once it is finished, I don't see any reasons why we couldn't later switch to CC Zero, if it turns out to be good. - Kari On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, 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. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don't relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn't because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it's PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkj+aC0ACgkQj6/6lS/XEIp+nwCeMjkQRU9qTcNNVaIWDYTDalRR 1cwAmwXFNT0lp/jPVbHdEi7x2jBYqrb6 =Ibli -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ 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
I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There is also a link from the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License to the new page. I listed all public domain licenses - we need to decide which one to use. How to make decisions? Voting? Also, there is a todo list. I'm not sure if it lists all the required actions, please correct it if it is wrong. - Kari On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...) To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work to produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to explain to say the least. Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which I suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it from the ODBL page. Thanks, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ 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?
I had a look at the Use Cases at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License and most of them are very traditional - printing a map/book, TV, DVD and a map on a web page. What about modern use cases, mainly web-based mashups?? I added a use case for photo geotagging (ala Flickr), blog geotagging, microblogging and wikipedia. Also, embedding coordinates in urls and as hCard metadata. Have a look at them. Does the new license allow these? How should OSM be attributed? BTW - The Open_Data_License page is referring a lot to some sections (4.4, 4.4c..) - are those sections in the new license, and where can they been seen? BR, Kari On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward Sent: 07 October 2008 00:47 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution? On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: I have added the brief to the wiki here. Notice that I have also created a 'Use Cases' section heading where we can add key example uses of the data which we can use to validate the final licence. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License I'd just like to say thank you very much for this, and the discussion you have helped provoke so far. Thanks, I am please how well the process is working. I notice some changes to the wiki page, and that there are new words to clarify what is public and some new use cases which is good to see. I have gone through the wording in the brief to try to clarify and condense the new elements. I have also moved the comment about making a million DVDs to the Use Cases section. There is still more work needed on the Brief and on the Use Cases but it is certainly getting there. Peter Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.-John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-alike license for gps coordinates derived from OSM
Hi, I'm creating a web site where people can set locations for places over a osm map. I also allow public to download these coordinate sets freely. I think according to your share-alike license the derived coordinates must be under the same license (by-sa 2.0)? I'm ok about this. However, people are also inserting additional information about these gps coordinates, such as place names, address, etc. As the data set is a combination of gps coordinates (derived from osm map) and names, addresses etc. does it mean that the whole data set must be licensed under by-sa-2.0?? BR, Kari I'm anwering myself, as I found the answer in FAQ. (should have read it first!!) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Common_licence_interpretations I created a layer on top of an OSM map. What do I have to put under your license? ... If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create a new layer by looking at the OSM data and refering to locations on it) then it is likely you have created a derivative work. ... If you have created a derivative work, the work as a whole must be subject to the OSM licence. .. I was thinking about licensing my own data under CC-BY, but your FAQ says that I have to license it under CC-BY-SA. I see two options for me: 1. Dual license the data (all data with coordinates under CC-BY-SA, my data without the coordinates under CC-BY) 2. Single license the data under CC-BY without any coordinates. No one will have access to the coordinates. BR, Kari ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
