On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Grant Slater wrote: > The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the > completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new > proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). > > The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and > supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap's > expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license > authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and > process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data > Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community > join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure > that the license is the best possible license for us. > > The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike > provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far > more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works > of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer > when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered. > > The license is now available at > http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and you are welcome to > make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list > also at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ up until 20th > March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and > comments should be made there as part of that process. > > Attached below is our proposed adoption plan and the latest will be at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan > . This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on the > discussion page for the plan: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Pl >an . > In summary, we'd like to give time for final license comments to be > absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the > current version of the new license to the community for adoption and > then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait > until the final version before formally reviewing the license. > > Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed Use Cases > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases and his > responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the > use of the Factual Information License > http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual > contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation > covered by the ODbL. > > There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on. > If you would like to help, please give input at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues > > For instance: Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license? > The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives? > And implementation What Ifs ... for example, what if the license is not > accepted? > > Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group > looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the > process. > > -------------- > All dates approximate for review. > > License Plan > > 27th February: > * This draft adoption plan made public to legal and talk list > with the draft license text made available by the Open Data Commons > (with facility for comments back) . Local contacts asked to assist in > passing on the message, and subsequent announcements. > > 2nd March: > * Working group meeting. Finalise implementation plan following > review of plan comments; What If scenario planning. > > 12th March: > * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received > to date. > > 20th March: > * End of ODbL comment period. > > 28 March: > * ODbL 1.0 is expected to be released by Open Data Commons at The > Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) London event. > > 31st March: > * OSMF Board endorses licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd > January) to vote (1 week) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the > community for adoption. > > What follows is based on a positive response from the OSMF members... > > + 1 week: > * Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have > set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up > page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People > who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and > are emailed a notice. > * Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. > Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page > explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a > requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop > people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to > license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL. > > + 2 weeks? > * Require people to respond to the licensing question. How? Should > we deny API access otherwise? > > +1 month: > * Working group meeting. Assessment of number of no responses > and number of people who haven't said either way. Emails ready to send > to contact those who have not clicked yes or no. Personal outreach to > those who have said no. > > + 2 months?? > * Final cut-off. What do we do with the people who have said no or > not responded? > > Thanks for the work you've done, now we can at last read the licence draft.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
