Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road. 2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road. Well, I can kind of see a problem here (and am not in the states now :-) ). In both situations the final version is a derived work of version A or B, or even a copy. User C obtained version B under CC-By-SA, but claims to hold copyright of it and grant all the rights to OSMF when she uploads her change. That's not how it works. If what you sketched here was true, then anything in OSM that I have edited last would be PD[*] because I say so. But in reality, changing the license of something in OSM generally requires consent from all those who ever modified it. In some cases it could be argued that changing the license of something requires even the consent of those having modified neighboring objects (e.g. you draw a road junction, I add the pub - could I have added the pub without your preceding work?). In other cases it could be argued that changing the license of something requires no consent because the change in question is primitive enough not to warrant copyright (e.g. a bot corrects a spelling mistake, does the bot operator now have to be asked about license change for this object?). There may also be cases where an object is so thoroughly changed that this effectively amounts to deleting the old and re-creating a new object; in these cases one could say that the creator of the original object has lost any claim to copyright on that particular object. I trust that the license working group will have discussed, or will be discussing, these fringe cases and come to a decision about them and publish that. But again, in general the sequence of changes to an object does not matter; whether you were the last person to edit the object or someone else edited it after you does not change the fact that you are one of the copyright holders and have to be asked about the license change. Bye Frederik [*] I have very limited patience with people discounting the concept of PD just because it doesn't fit in with the legal reality in their respective jurisdiction. Replace PD by CC0 or any long-winded phrase that basically says that the author doesn't care if that makes you happy; I'm also very fond of http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On 13 May 2010 13:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road. 2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road. Well, I can kind of see a problem here (and am not in the states now :-) ). In both situations the final version is a derived work of version A or B, or even a copy. User C obtained version B under CC-By-SA, but claims to hold copyright of it and grant all the rights to OSMF when she uploads her change. That's not how it works. If what you sketched here was true, then anything in OSM that I have edited last would be PD[*] because I say so. But in reality, changing the license of something in OSM generally requires consent from all those who ever modified it. That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user, registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to the work and transfer all rights to OSMF. But it's obvious they don't because they just downloaded the previous version from OSM (usually), and they may be in violation of the sharealike in CC-By-SA (assuming CC-By-SA was valid for data). That means that newly registered users as of two days ago can't make any edits other than those exceptional edits where a new version is a total remake of the object, not deriving from the previous versions. Especially they can't undelete things, under the contributor terms they agreed to. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user, registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to the work and transfer all rights to OSMF. But it's obvious they don't because they just downloaded the previous version from OSM (usually), and they may be in violation of the sharealike in CC-By-SA (assuming CC-By-SA was valid for data). C only makes a statement about his (own) contributions which, in the case of an object downloaded and edited only, make up *part* of the whole object. Just because I download your motorway and add some detail, the motorway does not become my contribution. Just as I make a statement about my contributions when I say it's all PD; if I load an object that someone else has created and apply my modifications to it, then my modifications may be PD but that doesn't make the whole object PD. If the contributor terms are worded in a way that makes people think they have to grant OSMF the do-what-you-want right for any object they touch (rather than for just their part in the state of the object) then that should be cleared up. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On 13 May 2010 14:18, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user, registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to the work and transfer all rights to OSMF. But it's obvious they don't because they just downloaded the previous version from OSM (usually), and they may be in violation of the sharealike in CC-By-SA (assuming CC-By-SA was valid for data). C only makes a statement about his (own) contributions which, in the case of an object downloaded and edited only, make up *part* of the whole object. Just because I download your motorway and add some detail, the motorway does not become my contribution. Okay, you may be right, I assumed the contents of your contibution are the contents of osmChange xml you upload, but the contributor terms page doesn't make it clear. So you say that when you undelete an object, your only contribution is the setting of the visible flag. I think it still could be argued that in majority of cases your edit is a derived work of the original work. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
