Quoting Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com>:
Simon Poole <simon@...> writes:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
some new nodes
- mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes
In this case the third edit would have to be reverted
IMHO no, if we assume that C is editing in good faith and actually
improving the geometry
I would say that C is mapping in good faith and improving the
existing geometry
by building on the previous work done by B as well as his or her own
surveying.
I've often walked around with a GPS, then come back and adjusted
road positions.
I would not claim that the resulting position was "all my own work",
particuarly
as I did not wholesale replace the layout with my GPS track but
rather tried to
find a middle path that lay between the existing geometry and the GPS.
Think about it another way - if mapper B had never existed, would the final
result be the same? If mapper C is wholly replacing the geometry then the
answer is yes, and the new layout is entirely C's work. If the answer is no,
then C is contributing useful information but relying on B's earlier work.
I contend that the second case is more common. Certainly if you
started mapping
and decided to totally ignore the existing layout of a way and
replace it with
your GPS trace or aerial tracing, you would be criticized by most of your
fellow mappers. It is more normal to make small adjustments, combining both
the new survey information and what went before.
(If you did decide to throw away the earlier work and start from scratch, you
might well just delete the existing object and make a new one.)
In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
requirement has always been that we have had permission to trace at the
point in time that the tracing happened
Right - we require permission. So for example tracing from Google
Maps is not
allowed, even if the legal theory about not creating a derived work turns out
to be correct.
I contend that mappers' contributions would need to be treated no
different to
any other external data source. If we have permission, we can use
them, if not,
we can't. If one mapper illegitimately adjusted the position of a way by
using Google Earth as a backdrop, but then a second mapper moved the position
of the nodes some more, normal OSM practice would still be to delete
the tainted
data.
If there is to be an exception (which does seem to me like one rule for
ordinary mappers, another rule for the OSMF) then I think the onus
is on those
proposing it to do the legal research making sure it is safe. Of
course it is
far more tempting to wave hands and pick whatever policy helps to
get the whole
business over with, but that is not a sound way to make legal decisions.
With respect to the legal fraternity, I think we are the experts here
as this thread is showing from all parties ... collectively making a
set of highly precise technical decisions based on general
legally-enshrined principles.
What we should be considering in making our final decisions is
1) risk - If we do/don't do something, what is the future risk to the project?
and
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other
conversations.
I would also point out that Safe Harbour provisions also apply, if an
ex-contributor later points out remaining instances of IP, then the
OSMF will take steps to remove them. We naturally want that to be
negligible or zero but it is an extra safe-guard.
Mike
LWG
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
