On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM, pec...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:
>
> 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
> 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
>
> My confusion and problem
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:01 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi everyone!
To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:
1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
2) I'm not
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
> clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike
> and attribution clauses.
>
I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority
of us in
On 12/9/10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think that, even more than "free and open", share-alike is a term that
> is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will
> already have written half a new license.
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
something you
2010/12/9 Frederik Ramm :
> Peter,
>
> pec...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
>> 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
>>
>> My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
>> if I
Hi,
80n wrote:
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
you received it.
According to *that* definition, ODbL is not a share-alike license. The
poster to whom I replied, however, seemed to be of the op
Hi,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you
accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share
alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If
that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community.
O
Grant Slater writes:
>If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new
>license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at
>least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on
>our terms.
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. T
- Original Message -
From: "Frederik Ramm"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Peter,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I'm not against OD
Hi,
David Groom wrote:
Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible
with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that
compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if:
(a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to
be removed
- Original Message -
From: "Frederik Ramm"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi,
David Groom wrote:
Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Grant Slater writes:
>
>>If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new
>>license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at
>>least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on
>>our terms.
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
> Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never
> do such a thing, but in theory it is possible.
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to ass
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor
> to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while
> the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his
> contribution is compatible wi
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote:
> On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com wrote:
> > About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
> > clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike
> > and attribution clauses.
>
> I don't
Not so simple.
I'd much rather have the share-alike on the underlying data to a
CC-BY-SA map than the map image itself being share-alike. Sharing the
underlying data is not a requirement of CC-SA licenses. So if we go by
your definition, CC-BY-SA is NOT share-alike because the data is not
shared a
On 9 December 2010 23:15, Ed Avis wrote:
> Grant Slater writes:
>
>>If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new
>>license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at
>>least 67% of us that this new proposed license was "free and open" on
>>our terms.
>
> We
Hi,
On 12/10/10 00:15, Ed Avis wrote:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active
contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking
contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy.
Or OSMF could simply sell off
On 10 December 2010 02:13, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor
>> to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while
>> the new CTs only require the contributor to
On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:
If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined.
But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet exis
On 10 December 2010 08:28, Francis Davey wrote:
>
> Eg, the open government licence (UK) requires that certain conditions
> are met, eg that data protection rules are not broken and that a form
> of attribution is used. The contributor would be in breach of the
> licence if they contributed withou
Hi,
On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is
deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising
you can think of. The balance is wrong, and
Grant Slater writes:
>>The definition of active
>>contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking
>>contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy.
>OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
>period of at least 10 months
Frederik Ramm writes:
>Or OSMF could simply sell off the servers, have a grand board meeting on
>the Maledives with all expenses paid, and declare bankruptcy afterwards.
>
>Oh wait, they can do that even now.
I do rather agree with you that trying to nail down and exclude all the
nefarious
an
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:48:47AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:
> >If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
> >This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
> >“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally def
In general, I think you completely miss the point. Wherever you might
like me to go, I am part of the community, so are all of the other
people who disagree with you.
If a small number of people coming up with the CTs wants to ignore me
and others for the sake of getting something out, then I don
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a
change. It should be substantially harder, not
"
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 10 December 2010 02:13, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor
t
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard
> that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the
> control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the
> future. And OSM h
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
> period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and
> do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors
> (electorate). While a theoretical, I simpl
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
definition of how "active contributors" are defined?
Robert Kaiser
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstre
Robert Kaiser writes:
>>Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
>
>Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
>definition of how "active contributors" are defined?
It says they have "edited the Project" in the past 3 months. But the point is
that this could, in
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
> something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
> you received it.
"Share alike" was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain
English, as "
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
"free and open". I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
(perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too*
often
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
> "free and open". I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
> contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
> (perhaps a minority of on
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
> >
> >If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
> >of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
> >then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s ha
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:33:59PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Ed Avis schrieb:
> >Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
>
> Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
> definition of how "active contributors" are defined?
It is quite well defined but not well
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Ed Avis schrieb:
>>
>> Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
>
> Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
> how "active contributors" are defined?
There's not a clear definition of how 67% is
On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Meme.
I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was
explicitly referenced.
I don't think the future
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s
> >sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything.
>
> You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be
> limited by it?
No. I said I don’t think it i
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
> >those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM
>
> I agree.
>
> >doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
> >dismissing it entirely
On 11/12/10 12:10, Simon Ward wrote:
You think:
OSM should not be limited by an external definition.
OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting,
You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a
good idea for OSMF to reference it).
I can’t quite
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >>It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been
> >>necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years
> >>of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years.
> >
> >May be.
>
> And OSM i
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I
> >think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
> >you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that
> >correct?
>
> I fe
On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote:
I think it is unnecessary to leave it wide open.
"free and open" doesn't leave it wide open.
I don’t necessarily want relicensing to be prevented, but I think doing
it should be discouraged. The Wikipedia relicensing was similarly a big
effort, and they
On 11/12/10 13:14, Simon Ward wrote:
So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred
I would certainly hope not.
I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again:
>
Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use,
analyse, modify, and redist
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:04:21PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> Relicencing is, I agree, a drastic move. But we are talking about
> making it possible or not here. And it is something that requires a
> convincing vote to achieve under the CTs.
I do not believe relicensing is impossible without it bei
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote:
>> We got new licences to choose from that countered
>> “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget
>
> We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them.
Th
Anthony schrieb:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
how "active contributors" are defined?
There's not a clear definition of
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
> abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
>
There's no such thing as "legalese" as I've said before. The CT's
don't say "67%" they say "2/3", which
On 11/12/10 18:31, Simon Ward wrote:
Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on
fear). Do you have any pointers? :)
My argument is neither motivated by fear nor requires fear in order to
make the point that I believe it does. And I do not believe that the
general arg
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
> On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>
>> If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
>> abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
>>
>
> There's no such thing as "legalese" as I
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Anthony schrieb:
>> It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be.
>
> 2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling "he's
> crazy!" - can you clarify what you mean?
It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of a
On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony wrote:
> It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have
> to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active
> contributors.
>
It is extremely unlikely that any English court would think so. The
phrase "a 2/3 majority vote o
Francis Davey writes:
>
> On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony wrote:
> > It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have
> > to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active
> > contributors.
> >
>
> It is extremely unlikely that any English court would th
Hi,
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors.
The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%:
"An 'active contributor' is def
On 14 December 2010 09:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
>
> I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would
> reach
> 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. It is nowadays a
> good percentage even in the election of the parliament. In year 2007 in
> Finl
Francis,
On 12/14/10 10:38, Francis Davey wrote:
Anyway, this is a governance issue rather than a legal one. As drafted
the CT's will require 2/3 of all active contributors, not merely those
who vote.
As written in another message, I believe that in this case an active
contributor is one who
On 14 December 2010 09:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> As written in another message, I believe that in this case an active
> contributor is one who votes (or, at least, replies to the email - the CTs
> don't say whether the email used to verify active-contributor status is the
> vote email at the sa
Frederik Ramm writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> > I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll
would reach
> > 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors.
>
> The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT wil
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
wrote:
> Frederik Ramm writes:
>> On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
>> > I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll
> would reach
>> > 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors.
>>
>> The turnout per
>> Also, the idea that the "vote" could be conducted via email is rather
>> humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the "hanging chads" in
>> that scenario.
>
> I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
> in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any ot
On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony wrote:
>
> I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either.
>
What would you suggest? A website with some form of authentication
given to contributors when they sign up to the CT's?
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
> On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either.
>
> What would you suggest?
I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says "I
haven't already voted under another account", and
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says "I
> haven't already voted under another account", and click "Yes" or "No".
> Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing
> the vote could manually check
Francis Davey schrieb:
There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
in principle in holding a vote by email
You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even
the slightest guarantee that a normal email is transmitted to the right
recipient correctly.
or indeed by any other
On 15 December 2010 19:06, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Francis Davey schrieb:
>>
>> There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
>> in principle in holding a vote by email
>
> You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even the
> slightest guarantee that a normal email is transmitted
67 matches
Mail list logo
