Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
Hi Tom, Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking request is considered „unreasonable“? There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by definition a very subjective judgement. Hm, some of the sysadmins claimed that the problems in the CT should not be fixed because the sysadmins would never be unreasonable. Now you tell me that you did not even come to a common understanding would the word reasonable should mean. My conclusion is that I should simply ignore this argument by the sysadmins. I have been repeatedly told that making the voting right dependent upon the edit right is not a problem and that the CT do not need to be fixed, because the sysadmin team will always be reasonable. At the same time, the same people tell me that it is entirely reasonable to block my edit right and to thus remove my voting right. I see a contradiction here. I (and several others) have explained the problem again and again. My problem is that the CTs seem, to me, to be making a reasonable effort to describe a workable way to determine who is an active contributor and all I've seen in response is ever more implausible scenarios which involve some large number of people collaborating maliciously over a long period of time to somehow subvert that definition. I do not assume malice. I simply assume that people do not care about the harm that their actions are doing to the community. If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is workable then please tell us what it is. I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of active contributors. I once made a constructive proposal for one potential way to fix the problem, which was met both with well-grounded criticism and with personal attacks. Hardly anyone of the people who criticised my suggestion have made any efforts to seriously work towards alternative solutions to the problem, and those who did were themselves ignored. What exactly was this constructive proposal? I have made two different proposals: 1. Enforce an agreement to the ODbL (and maybe to all other share-alike licenses), but ask again if a move to a non-share-alike license is planned in the future. Add a provision for non-responding people (i.e. opt-out rather than opt-in). 2. Do not make the voting right dependent upon actions of the sysadmins. Do not take away the voting right from people who once held it. Only allow to clean up the database of possible voters by removing non-responding people. There are also a number of other ways to fix the problem, but I see no point in spending a lot of time explaining and discussing if the OpenStreetMap teams with power (i.e. sysadmins and license WG) simply do not care. The license WG insist on not guaranteeing me a voting right. The sysadmins insist on blocking my edit right until I accept this. But I insist that this is no way to treat the mappers, who are the life of OpenStreetMap. Olaf ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 11/07/11 09:20, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is workable then please tell us what it is. I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of active contributors. The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise. If that is your aim, to ensure that the license can never be changed again, then fine - that is a perfectly respectable position to take. It would be dishonest to try and get that to happen via the back door though, by supporting a vote but ensuring that it will in practice be impossible. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
Hi Kai, One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project to keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3 weeks. I agree. However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of change to the CT (i.e. definitions of who is allowed to vote and how) is indeed very hard, as it would be incompatible with the current CT, as it is a global change rather than a change just effecting the local contributor. I see no problem here. The CT require both a positive vote in the OSMF and a 2/3 majority of a narrowly defined subgroup of the community. The new CT could require a positive vote in the OSMF and a 2/3 majority of the whole community. For a license change, we would then need a positive vote in the OSMF, a 2/3 majority of a narrowly defined subgroup of the community, and a 2/3 majority of the whole community. The new CT could require a positive vote in the OSMF and a 2/3 majority of the whole community. What could however be done without requiring to reask everyone to update to the latest CT, would be to include a sentence in that clause along the line that OSMF may only ban you from editing if there is clear indication of vandalism to the data or if other technical missuse can be shown. Thus political banning of people who don't agree with the OSMF will no longer be allowed and thus couldn't affect who is eligible for voting. Then one wouldn't need to rely on the sysadmins being reasonable and the sysadmins would not be in the awkward position of having to decide if OSMF is being reasonable or not. This would be another possible way forward. But more important is whether there is a willingnes to fix the problem. Olaf ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
Hi tom, The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise. I have made many suggestions how this problem can be avoided. I have made two such suggestions in the very email you are replying to. If that is your aim, to ensure that the license can never be changed again, then fine - that is a perfectly respectable position to take. It would be dishonest to try and get that to happen via the back door though, by supporting a vote but ensuring that it will in practice be impossible. No, this is not my position. We do you suspect me of it? If you are not interested in trying to understand the problems both in the CT and in the behaviour of the sysadmins, then this is perfectly understandable. But it is dishonest to interpret a small part of my email in a way that directly contradicts the rest of my email. Olaf ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 11/07/11 09:35, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: Hi tom, The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise. I have made many suggestions how this problem can be avoided. I have made two such suggestions in the very email you are replying to. Those suggestions were about changing the definition of an active mapper, not about doing away with the requirement for being active. I have no problem with suggestions for changing the definition of an active mapper, though I personally don't think the current definition is a major problem and I also think that most of your attempts to show how that will disenfranchise people are very contrived and unlikely to be a significant issue in reality. I'm not the person you need to convince about that though anyway. I was simply trying to explain why that one specific point of yours, that you don't think voting rights should be limited to active contributors, was IMHO a bad idea. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. That is, if OSM were as rigorous as Debian we wouldn't allow this as it is in violation of point 8 of the DFSG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines I would love to have these issues proved unfounded, but until then, I don't use bing at all, and am hoping the areas of OSM I'm interested in don't become too polluted by bing data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on their own website. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic. The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues Richard Fairhurst wrote a good piece on the legals around aerial imagery in 2009 Aerial photography, cock fighting and vodka bottles - http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/100.html / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
What is worrying me is that the LWG (=OSMF=COMMUNITY) requires any contributor (us) to sign up using a CT, where BING can get away with a simple blog page. I *can* understand that, because it's not OSM that is addressed in this blog, but the individuals (us) making contributions. The permission to use BING imagery is given to us in a vague blog entry on the page below. http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing- maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx We had better print this page and keep it's URL firmly ! In order to safeguard the OSM community, I want to suggest that the LWG pays as much attention to BING complying with our CT as to the us (=community) and demand a firm license addressing each OSM user, signed up to OSM to ensure it's legal position for the time he is using BING ! As I see it now, this blog is of no legal value, and any user might be sued for license violation. Not to speak about the consequences once BING imagery based data needs to be removed. The fact that Steve Coast actually pays his home with BINGS salary, does not create much of an insurance to us. Giant companies as Google and Microsoft are known to change their opinions fast as soon as their interest changes and no-one is there to protect us when things go wrong. GEODATA is a big business and I would not be surprised if MS one day decides that OSM is theirs, due to more then a substantial part is based on BING imagery, without sufficient legal foundation. I trust MS to have the legal force to make sure it takes less than a week to accomplish that. Gert On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing- maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_c opyright_issues ___ 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] [talk-au] Bing
Am 11.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Grant Slater: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. . The last time I read Nearmaps ToS I believe they were in fact -not- claiming any rights in traces from their imagery, but requiring you to enter in to a contract with them (via acceptance of the ToS) that you would only license the data you generated in a specific way. But I might be mistaken. In any case as has been discussed here before, the level of protection of photographic imagery differs so strongly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, that it doesn't seem wise to me to bet on there being no rights from the original source remaining in traces. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding compatibility of CC BY SA license versions
Hello, [I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these questions] I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who wants to allow OpenStreetMappers to use these aerial images. So far, the terms clearly do not allow this, but the provider is willing to change the terms. He has made a new draft, where he restricts use of the images data directly, but allows derivative works, provided they be placed under CC BY SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria. I assume that the Austrian version of CC BY SA is compatible with the (generic/unported?) one OSM uses currently? (Can someone confirm this?) What about the compatibility of Versions 2.0 and 3.0? If we are allowed to redistribute derived work in Version 3.0, can we do so also in Version 2.0, as this is what OSM requires currently in my understanding? [Another issue of course is that we should be allowed dual licensing including ODbL, but I already clarified this to the image provider] Is there any other thing I should ensure being present in the license granted, to be usable by us? Regards, -- Holger Schöner - nume...@ancalime.de ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list. Apologies. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote: ** If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct clarification from them that they have no objection to continued distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the ODbL. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. Hope that helps. The statement from the OS did not specify what content license was to be used for their content. They did not explicitly mention that their content could be included using the DbCL. My understanding is that the OpenData license would be the one that was applicable unless a more permissive license was *explicitly* granted by them, which it was not. Is this a correct reading of how things stand at the moment or have OS subsequently clarified that they are happy for their content to be licensed using DbCL within a database that is protected by ODbL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding compatibility of CC BY SA license versions
2011/7/11 Holger Schöner nume...@ancalime.de: Hello, [I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these questions] I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who wants to allow OpenStreetMappers to use these aerial images. So far, the terms clearly do not allow this, but the provider is willing to change the terms. He has made a new draft, where he restricts use of the images data directly, but allows derivative works, provided they be placed under CC BY SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria. I assume that the Austrian version of CC BY SA is compatible with the (generic/unported?) one OSM uses currently? (Can someone confirm this?) What about the compatibility of Versions 2.0 and 3.0? If we are allowed to redistribute derived work in Version 3.0, can we do so also in Version 2.0, as this is what OSM requires currently in my understanding? [Another issue of course is that we should be allowed dual licensing including ODbL, but I already clarified this to the image provider] Is there any other thing I should ensure being present in the license granted, to be usable by us? New data and sources must currently be compatible with CC-By-SA, and ODbL. Preferably also CT/ODbL. CC BY SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria is not sufficient permission because of the requirement for ODbL, but also because OSM is currently CC-By-SA v2.0. CC-By-SA does have an or later clause, but does not permit or earlier. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases David, David Groom wrote: This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be good to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental to a number of use cases of OSM data. You can always make an excerpt from an ODbL licensed database, which will then be an ODbL licensed database in its own right. That's the classic derived database thing. Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see from the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of the LWG) that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative Database, and not an ODbL licensed database in its own right. Its why I asked the question. Now I'm happy to believe that RW was wrong, but it would have been helpful if someone had pointed that out before now. It actually makes a lot more sense, its a lot easier to see how Collective Databases can come about, and it helps with a lot of use cases of OSM, but it does rely on the fact that an except from an ODbL database can be an ODbL database in its own right, which three weeks ago I was told could not be the case. Regards David. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006236.html While you have to retain attribution saying you derived this from X, in every other aspect your new, derived database stands on its own feet, and the ODbL applies to it in exactly the same fashion as it did to the original database. Therefore, whenever the ODbL says this database, that could either be the full OSM database; or you could make an excerpt from OSM, licensed under ODbL, which would then again be this database in a smaller context. Apart from the attribution thing, the excerpted database is not different, legally, from the mother database; there is nothing in ODbL that refers to that mother database in any way. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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
