Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
Hi, (taking this to legal-talk from talk where it doesn't belong) On 02/13/12 00:00, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote: I accepted the license, and also ticked the box that said I was happy with my contributions to be considered public domain. Hypothetically, if some years in the future, OSMF proposed a switch to public domain, can they assume my acceptance from that? OSMF could certainly release *your* contributions under Public Domain (since you have checked the box, and advisory or not, there would be a reasonably solid legal basis for doing that). Regarding a possible future switch to Public Domain, this is a difficult issue. In theory, OSMF can choose to switch to any free and open license if 2/3 of active mappers agree. PD is a free and open license so that would be possible, providing that enough mappers find it a good idea. At the same time, OSMF promises in the CT to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.; This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean the CTs guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence changes, but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not that OSMF will only ever release your data under licenses that guarantee attribution down the line. But Simon is right when he says data with such requirements would have to be removed. This means that if we ever wanted to go PD, then we'd have to find out which data has some kind of attribution requirement attached, and remove that data before we go PD. Since we don't require such data to be identified at the moment, that would be one hell of a job. In my eyes, this is a very sad development that undermines any future license change, even one to a non-PD license. Earlier versions of the CT basically required you to *only* contribute data of which you could surely say that it could be relicensed freely under the provisions of free and open and 2/3 of mappers agree. This as been whittled down to you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current license and you don't even have to *tell* us what further restrictions it is under. Any future license change has therefore become very unlikely - except maybe a switch back to a CC license -, and not much remains of the license change provision in the CTs. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
On 13/02/2012 12:53, Simon Poole wrote: Am 13.02.2012 12:33, schrieb Frederik Ramm: This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean the CTs guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence changes, but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not that OSMF will only ever release your data under licenses that guarantee attribution down the line. My statement should naturally be read in the context of the statement below: if we distribute your data, the attribution via website (and further schemes that are being developed) will remain intact. But Simon is right when he says data with such requirements would have to be removed. This means that if we ever wanted to go PD, then we'd have to find out which data has some kind of attribution requirement attached, and remove that data before we go PD. Since we don't require such data to be identified at the moment, that would be one hell of a job. In my eyes, this is a very sad development that undermines any future license change, even one to a non-PD license. Earlier versions of the CT basically required you to *only* contribute data of which you could surely say that it could be relicensed freely under the provisions of free and open and 2/3 of mappers agree. This as been whittled down to you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current license and you don't even have to *tell* us what further restrictions it is under. Any future license change has therefore become very unlikely - except maybe a switch back to a CC license -, and not much remains of the license change provision in the CTs. While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to data that is in the database should be attribution via the Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because of the necessary data removal). And not even that. Using a distribution license without any attribution requirement and the OSMF obligation to provide first level attribution is compatible and works together. *If* non-share-alike licenses become the future norm for open sharing of highly factual datasets, then I believe european licenses like the generic UK Open Goverment License [1] will become the template. These require first level attribution only ... which is the primary reason for the CTs attribution clause. If anyone is interested on what I mean by first level attribution, I have a draft paper here http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_103fdxjk3qt Mike [1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
Hi, On 02/13/2012 12:53 PM, Simon Poole wrote: While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to data that is in the database should be attribution via the Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because of the necessary data removal). No, even after April 1st the following is entirely plausible: - mapper contacts government asking for data - government says here, you can have that, but it may only be distributed under ODbL or CC-BY-SA, nothing else - mapper contributes data to OSM without even *telling* us that there is this additional requirement (CT only require that the mapper makes sure data is compatible with current license) Any future license change to, say, CC-BY or GFDL3.15 or whatever would then require that data to be deleted, but we wouldn't even know that. 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] Contact And Remap Campaign
Am 13.02.2012 14:32, schrieb Frederik Ramm: . - mapper contacts government asking for data - government says here, you can have that, but it may only be distributed under ODbL or CC-BY-SA, nothing else - mapper contributes data to OSM without even *telling* us that there is this additional requirement (CT only require that the mapper makes sure data is compatible with current license) IMHO the problem exists, but can only happen if the mapper ignores the community guidelines on imports*. That we don't do a particulary good job of communicating and enforcing these additional, over the basic CT terms, rules (not just on imports) is not a big secret, but something that we can and should change going forward. Simon PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community discussion part in the first place. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
2012/2/13 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community discussion part in the first place. FYI: In Italy there are currently some imports going on, where the data is licensed cc-by-2.5 and there are also other imports of the past under this license in Italy. cc-by is not a very restrictive license but still it imposes some problems for further license changes. I'm pretty sure an import that is compatible with the current licence (read: OdbL / CT and cc-by-sa2.0 ) will generally pass the community discussion, if the data is nice (up to date, good quality). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable. But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue? If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data (the enforce bit of my previous posting). Simon Am 13.02.2012 15:22, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2012/2/13 Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch: PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community discussion part in the first place. FYI: In Italy there are currently some imports going on, where the data is licensed cc-by-2.5 and there are also other imports of the past under this license in Italy. cc-by is not a very restrictive license but still it imposes some problems for further license changes. I'm pretty sure an import that is compatible with the current licence (read: OdbL / CT and cc-by-sa2.0 ) will generally pass the community discussion, if the data is nice (up to date, good quality). cheers, Martin ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable. But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue? If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data (the enforce bit of my previous posting). I think you mean, respectfully request that the errant importer clean up their own mess. The DWG can be polled for help, but the community should attempt to resolve this first. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
On the same topic: I've started work on going over the import catalogue (giving a lot of room for stuff that is under discussion or clearly ok (Corine)) and moving entries that either will or should go away with the licence transition (note green is -good- aka will be automatically deleted), and/or are not documented well enough to keep in the database and should be deleted after investigation. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#Imports_slated_for_deletion As said above, the list isn't complete yet and probably contains a couple of false positives (stuff imported by GeoFabrik for example). Simon Am 13.02.2012 15:51, schrieb Richard Weait: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable. But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue? If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data (the enforce bit of my previous posting). I think you mean, respectfully request that the errant importer clean up their own mess. The DWG can be polled for help, but the community should attempt to resolve this first. ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
On 13 February 2012 12:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to data that is in the database should be attribution via the Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because of the necessary data removal). Simon PS: Andrzej will naturally point to the Polish situation, and I will point back saying: please supply a list of the relevant changesets of CC-by-2.0 data that were erroneously declared good (by way of excepting the CTs). (I assume you mean CC-By-SA) Simon, I would like to know what your interpretation of the current Contributor Terms version is, I know what LWG's interpretation is from their meeting minutes and it must be different from your interpretation. If by declared good you mean declared ODbL-compatible then there's nothing special in Poland because nothing has been declared good. The acceptance of CT, according to LWG (and to my reading of CT 1.2.4) is not such a declaration, it is orthogonal to ODbL compatibility. There's no basis for anyone to assume such a thing, worldwide not only in Poland. Secondly as you know CC-By-SA licensed data has been contributed by CT-accepters outside of Poland too and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being contributed today taking advantage of the current license still being the CC one. It is not only through (what we call) imports. Even if it were through imports only, then I can't make out what you mean by erroneously. First of all the imports in Poland have been documented in the imports catalogue on the wiki, so this was in keeping with the community guidelines as well as the CT. This is not true of the hundreds of local, smaller imports that are happening every day (see the imported streets in Lima, or see the Santa Rosa town in the El Oro canton of Ecuador and the nearby towns, and tell me what their original license was) especially in non-English-speaking countries, where the Contributor Terms is the only binding document. The community guidelines are really guidelines of the part of the community contributing to the talk@ list and the English wiki, a tip of an iceberg. (for the record, I did indicate to the LWG how to produce a list of the changesets in Poland containing imported CC-By-SA data) Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
Am 13.02.2012 17:44, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: (I assume you mean CC-By-SA) Simon, I would like to know what your interpretation of the current Contributor Terms version is, I know what LWG's interpretation is from their meeting minutes and it must be different from your interpretation. If by declared good you mean declared ODbL-compatible then there's nothing special in Poland because nothing has been declared good. The acceptance of CT, according to LWG (and to my reading of CT 1.2.4) is not such a declaration, it is orthogonal to ODbL compatibility. There's no basis for anyone to assume such a thing, worldwide not only in Poland. I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a current licence terms refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL + DbCL1.0 , implying that any imports have to be compatible with both*. I can't put my finger on an formal statement by the LWG that would indicate otherwise, can you? Secondly as you know CC-By-SA licensed data has been contributed by CT-accepters outside of Poland too and I wouldn't be surprised if it's being contributed today taking advantage of the current license still being the CC one. It is not only through (what we call) imports. How can it be other than an import, either a derivative or original work covered by CC-by-SA 2.0? Even if it were through imports only, then I can't make out what you mean by erroneously. First of all the imports in Poland have been documented in the imports catalogue on the wiki, so this was in keeping with the community guidelines as well as the CT. This is not true of the hundreds of local, smaller imports that are happening every day (see the imported streets in Lima, or see the Santa Rosa town in the El Oro canton of Ecuador and the nearby towns, and tell me what their original license was) especially in non-English-speaking countries, where the Contributor Terms is the only binding document. The community guidelines are really guidelines of the part of the community contributing to the talk@ list and the English wiki, a tip of an iceberg. Naturally due to the nature of the project the amount of control that can be exerted over what is actually included in the database is limited, but that has absolutely nothing specific to do the the OdBL or the CC-by-SA 2.0 (it applies just as much to people importing stuff from commercial data sources which are compatible with neither etc.). And yes I would be all for a zero tolerance stance and a tight regime on imports, but alas that is somewhat at odds with the touchy-feely nature of the project. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
Am 13.02.2012 18:55, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: Take the example of NearMap TOS, tracing NearMap (specially aided by local knowledge) is not something we tend to call an import. It is not an import, but it is an incredible special, special case (and one that is no longer an issue). Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Too many things to do before a license change
Freimut, it would be nice if you could at least sign your name *somewhere* in your emails. This list (rebuild@) is dedicated to the rather technical side of how to get from our current database to an ODbL clean database once it is clear what data can be kept and what cannot. Any discussion about the process that should come *before* that - i.e. any discussion about how to determine what is kept and what isn't, whom to contact, what significance your 80% number has, how to determine the right time to actually execute the license change, and so on - falls in the realm of legal-talk, where I'm full-quoting your message to. Bye Frederik On 02/13/2012 10:28 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Only six weeks are left before the scheduled license change on April 1st. There are still too many open issues: - checking imports (e.g. h4ck3rm1k3) which is rather an administrative than a political issue - only 80% of worldwide mappers have agreed so far, despite a tremendous mailing effort - checking invalid e-mails? - sending paper letters to ~200 non-responding real-name mappers? - enabling self adoption of anonymous edits and second accounts? - How to deal with group accounts like mapping parties or schools with multiple authors? - How to deal with guest and test accounts? - How to deal with short-time mappers who did not reach the level of database protection? - How to deal with low-quality first-time mappers whose contributions can easily be removed? - How to deal with armchair mappers who (are supposed to) have copied from official maps? - How to deal with deceased mappers? - How to deal with forks that are ODbL-compatible, e.g. Commonmap? - How to deal with split ways? - How to replace ways that have been manufactured by decliners or non-responders and later modified by active mappers? In some cases, the current ownership attribution of split ways is simply fraud. As mentioned above, there are some special cases which can be rebuilt without any data loss, e.g. if the first editor has manufactured an empty way. I have seen many low-quality edits perfectly suited for silent rebuilding in the first stage. Gradual rebuild of clean ways would increase confidence among those who have declined for pollitical reasons. However, a sudden data loss makes many mappers more angry and drives them off :-( Based on historical experience, each of these issues will take at least one LWG session. As the OSMI inspector still contains many errors, it would be a good idea if any mapper was able to report typical license problems to a bug system (and not to the press nor to the court). Remapping is another activity that cannot be done neither in six weeks nor in six months. Remapping according to high ethical standards (local survey in the outback) requires some coordination. E.g. a bug tracking system like OpenStreetBugs to identify neighborhoods that need to be remapped on the ground. It would make sense to handle both license and remapping issues within the same bug tracking system. a) remapping required (e.g. adding maxspeed, surface) b) license problem (e.g. decliner has imported from a clean source) c) license and remapping problem: armchair mapper has redrawn the way that still needs to be verified by local survey. These bugs need to be confirmed twice. There are too many open issues which cannot be solved within few weeks (only if the LWG meets every weekday until April 1st). However, I would be happy if the LWG seriously pursued rather a clean than a quick license change. If anybody involved has already booked his vacation after April 1st, we may continue in May to pursue a clean license change. Cheers -- 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] Contact And Remap Campaign
On 14 February 2012 03:17, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a current licence terms refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL + DbCL1.0 , implying that any imports have to be compatible with both*. I can't put my finger on an formal statement by the LWG that would indicate otherwise, can you? I can't remember hearing any authoritative answers from the LWG on this, but it has been discussed a few times before. The answer I got when I asked, and almost all the answers I've seen to other people's questions since, are that it only has to be compatible with the current license we distribute the DB under (i.e. CC-BY-SA right now). For example http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005916.html. One problem with taking it to mean that any uploads must be compatible with both CC-BY-SA and ODbL+DbCL is that what it post-changeover. The same logic would then say that anything uploaded must be compatible with CC-BY-SA, which I would think is not what people want it to mean. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
