[OSM-legal-talk] License update
All Our lawyer has had a chat with Jordan (the original author of the ODbL). I spoke with Jordan this morning and he has a list of suggested changes with explanations from our lawyer which he is reviewing. I expect and hope this stage to be a simple review process before taking the next step. I'd love to give a timeline but I respect Jordan as the original author and wish to give him the time to review the changes. Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
On 25 Oct 2008, at 07:57, Jochen Topf wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:23:19AM -0700, SteveC wrote: On 23 Oct 2008, at 07:17, 80n wrote: [..] Please don't mail him personally, the worst thing would be multiple conversations as his time is valuable and they are doing this pro- bono. I'll happily pass on anything when I see those guys. Why not invite him to come to this mailing list so we can have one conversation? That will save time for him and for all of us, we are all working on this pro-bono. Because there isn't enough time to read and answer all the mails that come to this list. It is better to bundle everything up, filtering all the duplicates and getting him to answer them all at once. Shaun ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Hi, Shaun McDonald wrote: Because there isn't enough time to read and answer all the mails that come to this list. It is better to bundle everything up, filtering all the duplicates and getting him to answer them all at once. Granted. Whoever does the bundling and filtering, please put your results here before you give them to the lawyers so that we can point out possible omissions. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License update
All I've received back general comments from Wilson Sonsini (http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Index.aspx ) on the latest draft. My next task is to review those comments and feed them back to this list, review the use cases on the wiki and feed those to Wilson Sonsini and probably take a call or meet with them next week. I have a nice long flight on Friday when I will do this. Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License update
I posted a query about various 'Use Cases' for OSM data in regard to the new licence on the 7th Feb. See archive here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.htm l I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and that no response has been given by a qualified lawyer. With regard to the brief for this licence and the acceptance procedure for the completed licence I recommend that we: 1) Agree aims of the license in non-legal terms as a set of Use Cases on the wiki. 2) Agreed in advance an acceptance test for each Use Case; for example if the use case is using OSM mapping of Bagdad for an ITN news item about Iraq then we ask ITN to check the proposed licence and say if it is acceptable to them or not. If we want the data to be usable by Mutlimap within their current page structure then we ask them to ask their lawyer to sign it off. If we don't want people to strip the footpaths and add then to a commercial road data and sell it then we agree to get the licence checked by an independent lawyer in this respect. 3) Get a licence written that meets these use cases to the greatest extent possible. 4) Test the licence via the use cases using the agreed mechanisms. 5) Recommend the licence for adoption by the community. Regards, Peter Miller ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.html I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and that no response has been given by a qualified lawyer. With regard to the brief for this licence and the acceptance procedure for the completed licence I recommend that we: [...] Bully for you. What's in it for other participants? More abuse that they can't give conclusive answers and aren't not qualified lawyers? Sorry if I'm coming into this cold from the outside, but I really don't see why any readers would help this apparently-tangential licence project. The email linked above was also rather indirect can I suggest ... (Sgt Wilson?) rather than saying what you seem to want. I'm surprised it got two answers, but I guess this list is nicer than what I've seen before. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Frederik Ramm wrote: Sent: 19 March 2008 3:00 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update Hi, Bully for you. What's in it for other participants? More abuse that they can't give conclusive answers and aren't not qualified lawyers? Well perhaps you're coming cold from the outside as you say, you have missed one thing: The Foundation has been pushing this new license specifically saying: Look, we've got this excellent lawyer who is working with us to make the license right for everyone. - So Peter can hardly be blamed for hoping that a qualified lawyer might answer his questions, because one of the main advantages of the new license is hoping it will get us out of the legal swamp we're in with the old one. It's been stated several times before but the point keeps needing to be made. We, that is OSMF, have engaged Jordan to update the original ODL draft and incorporate the feedback we (the community) and others have given on it. He is not giving advice and therefore not in a position to answer legal queries about the use of the licence. Once the revised draft is ready we will be able to further review to see if it is fit for our purpose and if we feel we need others to give us a professional legal view on its usage. That will cost more money of course, but it's something that is being considered (as part of a peer review process). Cheers Andy Sorry if I'm coming into this cold from the outside, but I really don't see why any readers would help this apparently-tangential licence project. What appears to be tangential about the license project, and to whom does it appear so? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: MJ Ray [...] Not *the* licence project. *That* licence project, making use cases and testing things against them. I don't see how that connects to the OSMF licence development work except at one point = it is a tangent. I don't follow your argument. Use Cases and Validating against Use Cases seems an entirely appropriate method to ensuring that we end up with something fit for purpose. It is a technique that will be familiar to most software developers which is a bonus. Sure. They're interesting tests once we see the licence, but I don't understand how continuing the previous thread much further would inform the OSMF licence development work more, so getting upset at the lack of continuation seems a bit odd. [...] I am keen that the final licence agreement is checked by independent competent lawyers drawn from our target commercial user community. Otherwise we won't have tested to licence effectively. Well, if you can make that happen, great, but I wonder whether the target commercial user community's lawyers are likely to tell this list if they spot a vulnerability. The benefits of doing so have not been made clear, really. (By the way, I'd find it easier to reply if you continued the previous thread instead of sending new mail and didn't include lines containing only one space. They're just small things, really, though.) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Hi, This could take a little while, so we're thinking of changing the language of _new_ user signups to instead of releasing their work as CC, but as CC _or_ the ODL if the rest of the community vote on it. 1. It is, in my eyes, far from clear what exactly the community will vote on (will it be the ODL? what will the ODL look like by the time?) 2. It is also far from clear who will vote and how this voting will look like. Who will be eligible? Etc. What happens if the project splits as a consequence of the license change, and the community in one sub-project gives it the license A and the community in the other sub-project gives it the license B? Unless all this is clear to the person signing up, they'll have a very hard time finding out what exactly they agree to by signing up - and we have a very hard time telling them that without creating the impression that we don't give a damn for the community process because we know what the outcome will be anyway! Because there are so many users signing up that every day it gets harder to go back and pull out data if a change is made. Very well. I suggest to ask everybody to sign up for PD because this makes sure that their work is not lost to the project. Sounds easiest to me. Those who don't do that will be included in the general license change E-Mail process later. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, This could take a little while, so we're thinking of changing the language of _new_ user signups to instead of releasing their work as CC, but as CC _or_ the ODL if the rest of the community vote on it. 1. It is, in my eyes, far from clear what exactly the community will vote on (will it be the ODL? what will the ODL look like by the time?) 2. It is also far from clear who will vote and how this voting will look like. Who will be eligible? Etc. What happens if the project splits as a consequence of the license change, and the community in one sub-project gives it the license A and the community in the other sub-project gives it the license B? Unless all this is clear to the person signing up, they'll have a very hard time finding out what exactly they agree to by signing up - and we have a very hard time telling them that without creating the impression that we don't give a damn for the community process because we know what the outcome will be anyway! I'm also wondering. How can one legally agree to release a contribution under a license which is unfinished? Or am I misunderstanding the situation and the ODL is in fact done? Charles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Charles Basenga Kiyanda wrote: I'm also wondering. How can one legally agree to release a contribution under a license which is unfinished? Or am I misunderstanding the situation and the ODL is in fact done? Technically speaking the user would be licensing their contributions under the ODC Factual Info Licence (http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/), to which no changes are proposed. The FIL is in essence a PD-style licence; but (if the community approves a change to ODBL) OSM would only republish these contributions under the terms of ODBL, thereby providing the share-alike/attribution-style protections. As I alluded in my reply to Dom's e-mail earlier, users could also _additionally_ permit OSM to republish their contributions as public domain. This would essentially be formalising the wiki PD-user initiative. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
