Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/16 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what we're going to have to live with. +1 Are you serious? Around where I map I estimate there are 500k to a couple millions OSM objects who's authors have never agreed to ODbL or OpenStreetMap CT, but which show green on the license change maps. And although OSMF has not started publishing data under ODbL yet, these people already feel like they've been cheated and have no say over how their work is being used. They asked me as an ex-osmf member where the official license-clean map was, where a human readable version of the OSM Contributor Terms could be had, whether any of the recent recommendations on what can be considered license-clean has ever been reality-checked with a lawyer, etc. All these times all I could answer was no or there's none and apologise. On the other hand when trying to have those issues cleared up myself I'm never getting my mails answered. It really looks like OSM's goal once was to be whiter than white legally, and now it's mostly about the risk of getting sued (expressly stated in LWG communication). Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Ulf Möller remembered
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: I am deeply shocked this morning to learn of the murder of [our] friend Ulf. The OSMF site has a page where we can add our memories of Ulf. http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/01/18/ulf-m%C3%B6ller-1973-2012/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
First of all I must say that I highly respect the work of everyone who has been actively involved in the licence change, including the LWG members, the writers of licence change inspection programs and everyone involved in discussions. I have been watching the process for more than two years and have ever since been a supporter of the change. However, especially since the switchover date has been announced and the phase of remapping has started, I have become more and more skeptical about the way things are going on. I want to discuss a couple of concerns I have. 1. The black box As far as I can see the details of the implementation of the licence change, i.e. of what is actually going to happen on April 1st, are not known - or at least not revealed. Correct me if I am wrong. Particularly, the wiki page „What is clean?“[1], which has been said to be the binding document, is in its current state not sufficient to serve as a reference for any measures regarding the cleaning of data: * The considerations in the section „Edge cases“ are only a random selection of cases that have been discussed. Neither conditional stetements like „if it can be seen not to influence the current version“ nor questions like „Can you copyright the state of something not being there?“ (rhetorical?) are helpful. The list somewhat lacks a systematic approach. * The „deletion paradox“ is, as it has been pointed out on the discussion page, no paradox at all (rather it depends on the strategy of cleaning). * The section „What taints data?“ repeats the above-mentioned list, but is differently (better) structured and different in content. Statements in this list, however, contradict, or supersede, previous statements („A tag modified by a non-agreeing mapper is tainted“, whereas: correcting a tagging typo is not tainted). Furthermore the list contains instructions, which should not be the case in a mere specification of what is clean. The clause saying that intermediate versions should be created during remapping (a) does not belong here and (b) is questionable, as it is based on assumptions regarding the implementation of switchover, which has not yet been decided upon. * There should be rationales explaining for each statement why it is so and not different. Basically I think that this document needs a rewrite that shall contain unambiguous statements preceded by precise definitions. In order to get there, however, we must of course have a discussion. 2. Getting clear about taintedness IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. Is a node copyrightable? If yes, what's copyrightable about it? What's copyrightable about a way? Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Sorry for the rhetoric, but these questions do bother me. I believe they have to be answered prior to discussing which kinds of modifications to what object have what effect (- taintedness). And when that has been settled, we can talk about measures. All in all I think that the approach to the whole thing so far has been too pragmatic, just like identifying edge cases and modeling something around it. Of course, this might somehow work and the result might even be satisfying, but to me it doesn't seem appropriate in a legally significant matter like this. 3. Remapping Considering that neither the definitions of what is clean and what is tainted nor the technical details of the implementation have yet been finalized, it seems unreasonable for me to remap. I don't want to discover later that I have done unnecessary work. Besides, current remapping practice is completely based on the available inspection tools that implement - more or less precisely - a taintedness policy that is still in draft status. For this reason I also refuse to use the odbl=clean tag. Now I could elaborate a lot more. But the purpose of my post actually is to start a discussion, and I am asking you. Me too wants the licence change to be a success. So let's go. Cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
Knowing it does not really start the discussion: I totally agree. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/18 ant antof...@gmail.com: First of all I must say that I highly respect the work of everyone who has been actively involved in the licence change, including the LWG members, the writers of licence change inspection programs and everyone involved in discussions. I have been watching the process for more than two years and have ever since been a supporter of the change. However, especially since the switchover date has been announced and the phase of remapping has started, I have become more and more skeptical about the way things are going on. I want to discuss a couple of concerns I have. 1. The black box As far as I can see the details of the implementation of the licence change, i.e. of what is actually going to happen on April 1st, are not known - or at least not revealed. Correct me if I am wrong. Particularly, the wiki page „What is clean?“[1], which has been said to be the binding document, is in its current state not sufficient to serve as a reference for any measures regarding the cleaning of data: * The considerations in the section „Edge cases“ are only a random selection of cases that have been discussed. Neither conditional stetements like „if it can be seen not to influence the current version“ nor questions like „Can you copyright the state of something not being there?“ (rhetorical?) are helpful. The list somewhat lacks a systematic approach. * The „deletion paradox“ is, as it has been pointed out on the discussion page, no paradox at all (rather it depends on the strategy of cleaning). * The section „What taints data?“ repeats the above-mentioned list, but is differently (better) structured and different in content. Statements in this list, however, contradict, or supersede, previous statements („A tag modified by a non-agreeing mapper is tainted“, whereas: correcting a tagging typo is not tainted). Furthermore the list contains instructions, which should not be the case in a mere specification of what is clean. The clause saying that intermediate versions should be created during remapping (a) does not belong here and (b) is questionable, as it is based on assumptions regarding the implementation of switchover, which has not yet been decided upon. * There should be rationales explaining for each statement why it is so and not different. Basically I think that this document needs a rewrite that shall contain unambiguous statements preceded by precise definitions. In order to get there, however, we must of course have a discussion. 2. Getting clear about taintedness IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. Is a node copyrightable? If yes, what's copyrightable about it? What's copyrightable about a way? Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Sorry for the rhetoric, but these questions do bother me. I believe they have to be answered prior to discussing which kinds of modifications to what object have what effect (- taintedness). And when that has been settled, we can talk about measures. All in all I think that the approach to the whole thing so far has been too pragmatic, just like identifying edge cases and modeling something around it. Of course, this might somehow work and the result might even be satisfying, but to me it doesn't seem appropriate in a legally significant matter like this. 3. Remapping Considering that neither the definitions of what is clean and what is tainted nor the technical details of the implementation have yet been finalized, it seems unreasonable for me to remap. I don't want to discover later that I have done unnecessary work. Besides, current remapping practice is completely based on the available inspection tools that implement - more or less precisely - a taintedness policy that is still in draft status. For this reason I also refuse to use the odbl=clean tag. Now I could elaborate a lot more. But the purpose of my post actually is to start a discussion, and I am asking you. Me too wants the licence change to be a success. So let's go. Cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of large-scale imports vs. small edits
Andrzej Zaborowski wrote: Are you serious? Around where I map I estimate there are 500k to a couple millions OSM objects who's authors have never agreed to ODbL or OpenStreetMap CT, but which show green on the license change maps. These nodes have been imported from UMP, a Polish sister project. They are compatible with the current license, but not with the new ODbL license unless the original UMP contributors agree. We should try to identify these UMP imports before making any decision on license change. Unfortunately, these imports are mixed with personal contributions. It would make sense to create a separate account for each import also for existing contributions in order to get a survey on imports. these people already feel like they've been cheated and have no say over how their work is being used. I can understand if their work exceeds a substantial amount. However, I have written about 100 personal messages to local mappers with 100-2000 edits, but only 50% of them have accepted so far. Among small editors, interest in licencing issues doesn't exist, and I think it would be best to assume that non-responding mappers with less than 100 nodes should be considered as acceptors. In Germany, 97% of those 4,000 mappers who created MORE than 2,000 nodes have agreed so far. Among those mappers who created LESS than 2,000 nodes, only 75% have agreed. In Niedersachsen, there are 100,000 nodes created by 2,000 small contributors with LESS than 1,000 edits which will be lost if every node must go. That's far more work than a single mapper can do. Some decliners have declined BECAUSE they don't want the work of small mappers being deleted. The risk of being sued by a non-responding 50-node mapper is rather zero as the cost of a small lawsuit in Great Britain is about £200 which is too high for a non-responding mapper. Copyright was invented to protect economic interests, but I cannot see the economic interest of a 50-node mapper who does not react to personal messages. Cheers -- Feel free - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ... Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
Hi, On 01/18/2012 06:13 PM, ant wrote: As far as I can see the details of the implementation of the licence change, i.e. of what is actually going to happen on April 1st, are not known - or at least not revealed. Correct me if I am wrong. They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list) to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in terms of policy, LWG will have the ultimate decision. And they are asking for out input via the What is clean page. That page is not, and was not intended to be, a binding document - it might become one later. I assume that LWG will certainly value your help in improving that document. IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. It has often been said that computer geeks, of which I presume you are one, are not well suited to perform legal analyis. The lawyer's answer to Is a node copyrightable? will almost certainly be it depends. (On country, circumstances, ...) In OSM, our current answers are: Yes, we treat a node as copyrightable; If yes, what's copyrightable about it? Its position and tags, unless the tags have been created automatically. What's copyrightable about a way? The sequence of its nodes and its tags. Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Every single tag and every single node reference are a treated as copyrightable by us. Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Atomic. As I said, this is just our current working assumption, not something set in stone. All in all I think that the approach to the whole thing so far has been too pragmatic, just like identifying edge cases and modeling something around it. Of course, this might somehow work and the result might even be satisfying, but to me it doesn't seem appropriate in a legally significant matter like this. It is possible that the approach only *seems* too pragmatic to you. I'm not with LWG but I would assume that they would welcome you into their weekly telephone sessions if you want. Considering that neither the definitions of what is clean and what is tainted nor the technical details of the implementation have yet been finalized, it seems unreasonable for me to remap. Thankfully, few other people think like you do. There may be edge cases, but I guess that whichever way these edge cases are decided, a significant portion of what is now considered tainted will always be tainted. And that stuff should be remapped *now*. I don't want to discover later that I have done unnecessary work. Your call. I'd rather re-map a few items too many than fix the holes in my street in April. Besides, current remapping practice is completely based on the available inspection tools that implement - more or less precisely - a taintedness policy that is still in draft status. For this reason I also refuse to use the odbl=clean tag. The odbl=clean tag is a kludge for difficult cases anyway. If you bring an object into a state that does not have any of the properties added by a decliner, that is sufficient to make it clean automatically. Now I could elaborate a lot more. But the purpose of my post actually is to start a discussion, and I am asking you. Me too wants the licence change to be a success. So let's go. It's ok to discuss these things, but the approach I won't move a finger until I am told *exactly* what the rules are is not helpful. The rules might *never* be final - even when we do the rebuild according to the then-believed-final rules, it could happen that someone later points out an oversight, or a court decides something, forcing us to remove things we thought we could keep or vice versa. You can only ever go up to 80% certainty in these matters. Demanding more is not realistic. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of large-scale imports vs. small edits
Hi, On 01/18/2012 07:48 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: The risk of being sued by a non-responding 50-node mapper is rather zero as the cost of a small lawsuit in Great Britain is about £200 which is too high for a non-responding mapper. This is quite a cynical approach. We can ignore the copyright of small contributors because they won't sue anyway Not my style. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On 18 January 2012 23:33, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 01/18/2012 05:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed. Now OSM uses their map data and entire cities initially imported from their project are shown green. This is a consequence of how LWG wrote the Contibutor Terms and the cleanness-criteria. If somewhere an entire city [is] shown green then this means that *someone* in OSM has added odbl=clean to all the objects. That person, and not LWG, bears the responsibility. Can you point to an example? Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and this leads to a lot of misunderstandings. (This should be fixed if the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be) I can understand people when they can't agree to the CT's for a variety of reasons, but why they would feel 'cheated' when the rest of us are merely trying to continue where they left off minimizing the damage, is beyond me. And this is something I can not understand. Say that you're contributing to a project with some purpose or license. Now a subgroup of contributors wants to change this and continue without any losses. If the original contributors don't think the new direction is correct, why should they all have to help that subgroup? I think that Jo does not talk about helping (in terms of doing work), but just about letting what you call a subgroup have the data. I.e. they don't have to actively spend time; the work is already done; all it needs is a yes. And while you're right in saying that just because you agree to let others have your work und free and open license A it doesn't mean that you also like free and open license B, the truth is that from a small distance, we're all in the same camp, the group of people who like free and open licenses. We might have our differences, some of us have a beard and prefer the team free software while others are clean-shaved and talk about open source software, and so some this sounds like a real big deal, but you only have to take one step back and you'll see that basically we're all of the same tribe. You're right here. When I said new direction I admit that's an exaggeration if we're talking about CC-By-SA vs ODbL. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
