Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:37:14 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is already decided; further votes are not planned. I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a community. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:01:12 +0100 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? The vote. OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a community. Any representational or governing body will be a small set of persons. Depending on which sense of representative you are using, the vote rings true given my experience of OSM debates around licencing and OSMF is as open and responsible or more so than other Free projects. Anyone can join OSMF. - Rob. The vote is not a mandate. It is a vote of a subset of persons. Being a member of the OSM community is not a condition of belonging to OSMF. Not everyone can join OSMF. Joining is restricted to persons with enough spare cash to pay a fee in Pounds Sterling, access to a system for international money transfer if not in the UK, and a number of other practical points dependent on UK law - I would expect that minors are not supposed to be voting members of a UK company. The ability to manage well in written English would be a practical requirement. To pick an obvious example, the persons who mapped Nigerian slums are unlikely to have the financial resources to join. Most students don't have such resources. I would not expect the students involved in mapping ShimlaPuri to have the financial resources. OSMF was set up for a particular purpose. Because responsibility for the servers implies responsibility for the contents, the extension was made to the licence. OSMF extended itself this privilege, not the OSM community. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence for the data which they've contributed[1]. I agree with what you are writing here. It is of course not what Frederick is writing, in which he clearly states that the licence is changing. I am then told I can agree with the CTs. But I disagree with the ODbL - where do I get a chance to agree or not agree to sign up to that? The OSMF vote did not include the CTs in the current form. I really thought that it was just about the licence, and that the CTs were still in alpha format at the time.(of course, whether they have reached beta yet is a matter for discussion). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I realise Liz has already posted elsewhere that she's aiming to be disruptive, but I hadn't realised that it was some form of sub-4chan concerted trolling expedition. As the choices offered by some people seem to be limited to accept licence || leave OSM accept the views of group X || trolling and as I am substantially older than the majority of you, I know that the world is not black and white, and that consensus is possible, even at this stage in the argument. Disruption can be the passive resistance of Mahatma Ghandi or the fire-bombing tactics of IRA (I guess my choices here show my age). Certainly continuing to ask questions which are relevant and which don't get answered is disruptive, because it forces people to stop what they are doing and answer, even though some of the answers I receive are immature and impolite. The data I have contributed (by ground survey, please note) will remain copyright to myself, and is not going to be included in the ODbL database. Would you kindly indicate how you are going to remove it? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] In what direction should OSM go?
This belongs back on talk with a new header. OSM states that it is a free map, free to edit and free to use Whether the database should contain imported stuff, traced stuff, or only personally surveyed stuff is a very big issue and any intent now to alter the basic rules of inputting should be back on Talk. On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:03:15 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Francis Davey wrote: My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under some other licence. Any future license change would then be constrained to the common denominator of all these licenses *or* risk repeating all the data loss whining that we're seeing now. The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal answer is a clear no; because to me, the value of imported data is very small, almost neglibile compared to data contributed by members. I am not against imports in general; I believe there are some isolated cases where a government or other dataset has really helped the project. But I don't see any individual import, or the ability to import data at all, as crucial for OSM's success. I am especially surprised about the mood in the UK community. The UK is where OSM started because David didn't want to be bossed around by Goliath any longer; it is this let's show the OS what a bunch of hobby mappers can do attitude that has given OSM much of its energy in the early days. But today, it seems to me that half of the UK community is of the opinion that OSM is dead if it cannot use OS open data. If that had been the mood from day one, OSM would never have started at all. I firmly believe that collecting third-party geodata into an user editable pool is NOT the main purpose of OSM, and even detracts us. Thus, I would never accept future liabilities in return for being allowed to import a third-party data source. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Natural person in CT 3
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:10:59 -0400 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: CTs are per account. Active Contributors are per person. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_FAQ a last minute explanatory add-on initially CTs were per person now the rules slide and change and now the CTs have to be read with an an addendum. Put the details in the CTs, and write them out properly. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK Public Rights of Way
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Tom Hughes wrote: Yes, the council will be sending the data they create describing the routes of paths to the OS but they will also be using OS data when creating that description - if a path goes from the junction of two roads to the corner of a field then they will likely locate those features on a OS map and draw a line between them. This needs to be determined - I know from personal contact that here, in my local council area in australia, the GIS staff go out with GPS equipment to determine where things are. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Vincent MEURISSE wrote: If you really need such a tool, copy the software used by openstreetbug, put it on your server and then you can have annotations on the map. thanks Vincent that could well be a workable solution ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Ulf Möller wrote: It doesn't. It's just that during a review of the proposed license, a lawyer pointed out that it is good practice to have terms of use for the website. That recommendation would still stand if we chose not to change the license. I can't really comprehend how terms and conditions for use of a website mean anything in the big real world. I'm over 50 years old, have university degrees and post graduate qualifications; i teach undergraduates and postgraduates in my field. However, I'm not stuck in academic clouds and putting terms and conditions on a website is bizarre. I go to a website, i read, i look at pictures. I know quite well that the contents are either copy left or copyright and i should check before i copy anything. Terms and conditions for use of a website - do we put terms and conditions on advertising posters governing who can read them? It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for the public to read. Put the lawyer back in the cage. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Francis Davey wrote: Put the lawyer back in the cage. Be nice 8-). This isn't (as far as I can see) about lawyers being unreasonable. I just get the impression that some people have had so much to do with lawyers while trying to get the database licence organised that they have lost sight of reality. Lawyers advise. Philosophers think. Don't mix the roles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Do you wear a helmet when you ride a bicycle? Accidents resulting in TBI are very uncommon, but their consequences are very high and a helmet will protect you from many of those consequences. Fantastic. We have now found the one OSM-related argument guaranteed to result in more flames than BSD vs GPL. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ etc. Not saying I agree or otherwise, just... well. got no choice, its the Law. helmets are also much cheaper to replace than prescription glasses - is that on the site too? -- BOFH excuse #260: We're upgrading /dev/null ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LINZ Data under Creative Commons 3.0
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Jochen Topf wrote: On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:13:41PM +1200, Andrew Simpson wrote: The licence is Creative Commons 3.0 and is clearly shown on the web page. There is no mention of 'what' and 'how' the required credit should be attributed. And on the same web page it clearly says Contains data sourced from Land Information New Zealand. Crown Copyright reserved.. Not really that clear it seems. Jochen what is clear is that Andrew should write to the LINZ and ask them to confirm licence and if suitable to use in OSM. I haven't been asking lately because of the licence debate - I can't be clear on what I am asking these days. -- BOFH excuse #331: those damn raccoons! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OGC Geospatial Rights Management Summit
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: Facts are Facts and can't be Copyrighted ... which ist not exactly the position that OSM is taking on this matter; in fact, with ODBL we go to great lengths to ensure that even if our facts should not be copyrightable we still get to say exactly under what conditions they are used through contract and database law. We're willing to enter completely uncharted waters and use a new and untested licensing framework precisely because we do *not* want our data to be free of any restrictions. So if you are looking for someone who takes the above position, best talk to one of the Science Commons guys! Bye Frederik That is the basis of Australian law, and recent a High Court decision has returned us to that position, carefully deciding that a database, to be subject to copyright, had to demonstrate intellectual or artistic input. So the facts from a map in Australia can't be copyrighted. The intellectual and artistic work of creating a map results in a map which can be copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OGC Geospatial Rights Management Summit
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, SteveC wrote: I could in theory make it, and I even considered it for about 10 seconds... but I couldn't think what I'd get out of it other than frustration. DRM for maps, sorry GeoDRM... what can you say but FAIL ? Best Steve Trouble is, these people continue along their merry way if no one ever puts up a hand and says Facts are Facts and can't be Copyrighted back to question 1 has anyone got nothing better to do than upset these people on 22nd June? -- I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. -- J. R. R. Tolkien ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
