[OSM-legal-talk] Legal status of LoroDev source code
Hi, Developers of LoroDux may already know my work on LocateMe (later FollowMe) whose small code base is part included in LoroDux, I am FollowMe's creator and copyright holder. The FollowMe code was/is hosted at http://silentdevelopment.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/LocateMe I was disappointed that nobody informed me that LoroDux was part based on my code (at the project start I could have provided assistance) or that Daniel in his published thesis Ein Orientierungssystem für Menschen mit Sehbehinderung auf Java ME didn't mention it either despite referencing LoroDux and some parts of the FollowMe midlet view design, BluetoothReader.java, GPSDataUtils.java etc. However, complaining is not the only reason I joined the mailing list, I would like to inform LoroDux developers/legal people here that the licencing for LoroDux code as it stands is uncertain and I would like to clear up at least some of the uncertainty. By linking FollowMe code LoroDux developers have inadvertently re-licenced the LoroDux code under the GPL licence, regrettably ignoring my part's code licence, the CPL 2.0, which specifically states: A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; The GPL licence is not compatible with CPL 2.0 licence agreement*, thus legally the LoroDux developers, and thus OpenStreetMap have no right to use or distribute my part of the modified code in any form. However, I can see that LoroDux brings a much greater benefit to the community, and this the licence clash was not done in bad faith (some source code headers still contain my licence information), so as the copyright holder I'm waiving the CPL licence in this instance and permiting dual licencing either GPL or CPL, whichever the LoroDux developers see appropriate. Any future work I do on FollowMe or any Android work in this area, will also have this dual licencing for use by LoroDux (and will state such). Having browsed the LoroDux source code, developers should also be aware that it includes Sun Microsystems (now Oracle) propriety class source for BufferedReader. This was/is covered under Sun's own licence which if memory serves me correctly states that any core Java source cannot be repackaged (e.g. moved out of java.io), redistributed or re-licenced. Hope this helps clarify things and good luck with future work on this project, Benjamin Brown P.S. I had tried to sign up to the LoroDux developers list instead to post this but didn't receive a response so I'm assuming the project is now dead? *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_License ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal status of LoroDev source code
Hello, On 31.05.2012 21:55, follo...@silentsoftware.co.uk wrote: The GPL licence is not compatible with CPL 2.0 licence agreement*, thus legally the LoroDux developers, and thus OpenStreetMap have no right to use or distribute my part of the modified code in any form. Thank you for granting rights to that LoroDux project. Just want to mention that just being listed on our wiki does not mean the software was created or approved by OpenStreetMap or OSMF. Looks like this project was able to convince the lost owners to supply a mailing list. Still it is just one of many projects using OSM data. Actually OpenStreetMap provides open data that anyone can use according to (currently) CC-BY-SA and create applications with it, even commercial. The wiki mentions Lulu Ann as author of LoroDux. Would be a good idea to contact her directly at her published mail: Lulu-Ann at gmx.de Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OSOpenData licence
On talk-gb Nick Whiteleg recently announced what initially seemed to be some good news , that Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. However, my initial thoughts, and those of Robert Whittaker, was that this might not seem as good news as at first appeared, because the OS OpenData is not compatible with ODbL, and OSM had to seem explicit permission from OS for the use of their data to be covered by OSM's ODbL licence. Since this explicit agreement only covered the OS products, it seemed to be, and Robert, that this could not be extended to the Hampshire County Council (HCC) Rights of Way (ROW) data. I did have one further thought, which was that I could not see how HC ROW data could be released under the OS OpenData (OSOD) licence, since the OSOD licence is quite explicit in that in covers use of OS OpenData made available at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html and at http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ , and its difficult to see how this could cover HCC data. However I am now wondering if the statement on HCC web site [1] The data has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence. is in fact a slightly badly worded statement. A possible scenario which occurs to me is as follows: HCC used OS Opendata to derive the HSS ROW data. By this I mean that HCC used the OS VectorMapDistrict rasters, over which they then drew the ROW data which HCC had from their definitive statements. By doing this HCC were bound by the terms of the OSOD licence. When HCC state The data has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence I wonder what they actually mean is something along the lines of The data has been published as Open Data with the additional provisions required under the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence. If this scenario is correct, then it would seem to me that the data is OK to use in OSM. But it would need clarification from HCC that this is what they meant. David [1] http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=534104 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OSOpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 23:11 +0100, David Groom wrote: On talk-gb Nick Whiteleg recently announced what initially seemed to be some good news , that Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. However, my initial thoughts, and those of Robert Whittaker, was that this might not seem as good news as at first appeared, because the OS OpenData is not compatible with ODbL, and OSM had to seem explicit permission from OS for the use of their data to be covered by OSM's ODbL licence. Since this explicit agreement only covered the OS products, it seemed to be, and Robert, that this could not be extended to the Hampshire County Council (HCC) Rights of Way (ROW) data. As OSM's agreement is with the OS and not HCC I'd concur that strictly speaking the HCC dataset is not compatible with the ODbl. I do wonder though just how keen HCC would be to enforce attribution of a third party, especially when that party had previously stated that it had no objections to it's data being used in that way. I did have one further thought, which was that I could not see how HC ROW data could be released under the OS OpenData (OSOD) licence, since the OSOD licence is quite explicit in that in covers use of OS OpenData made available at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html and at http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ , and its difficult to see how this could cover HCC data. Yes, that thought had occurred to me too. However I am now wondering if the statement on HCC web site [1] The data has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence. is in fact a slightly badly worded statement. A possible scenario which occurs to me is as follows: HCC used OS Opendata to derive the HSS ROW data. By this I mean that HCC used the OS VectorMapDistrict rasters, over which they then drew the ROW data which HCC had from their definitive statements. Comparing the OpenData and non-OpenData versions of the definitive map makes this seem highly unlikely. What I suspect happened is that the OS agreed that HCC could licence their derivative work of a non-OpenData product under the OS OpenData licence. I guess what this boils down to is the question of whether our ODbL compatibility agreement with the OS is for anything they release under the OS OpenData licence (except Code-Point Open) or just for the stuff that had released at the time the agreement was made. My reading of Michael Collinson's post to the Talk-GB list[1] leads me to believe that it is the former. Cheers, Andy [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
