Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
John Smith wrote: In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Nice bait and switch... Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?! In your first paragraph you lump ODBL+CT together and then you conveneintly only use ODBL in your second paragraph, please point out if the UK Open Government License is also compatible with ODBL+CT. In my view, yes, it is compatible with ODbL+CT 1.2 (though not 1.0). OGL is an attribution licence and CT 1.2 guarantees attribution within the rights grant to OSMF. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5814560.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
I should have phrased that differently: asking the individuals in the mapper community It's clear that somewhere in the community as a whole there is the knowhow or the money to review licenses correctly (I wouldn't have suggested a register of allowed data sources otherwise). That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the future. Further I believe you are mistaken wrt to the number of licenses, particulary if you are looking a local and regional data sources. Simon - Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 Simon Poole wrote: Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with some degree of certainty is just a joke. Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a small number of licences. It isn't beyond the skills of the community (and the professional hired help that OSMF is able to arrange) to say whether these few licences are compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of future mappers. In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5813959.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
On 07/12/10 23:49, Simon Poole wrote: I'm not assuming anything. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM community) don't have an handle on imports in any respect. Yes I'd agree with that. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Since I don't beleive the current approach to handling imports in the CTs is workable: no I haven't made any effort to make the CTs 3rd party license compatible. But, yes, I've made an alternative suggestion. Essentially it boils down to the mapper importing data on behalf of the OSMF, sidestepping the whole issue of 3rd party data being first licensed to the mapper and then sublicensed to the OSMF. Simon - Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 Simon Poole wrote: That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the future. Oh, sure, nothing magically starts working. It requires willingness and commitment to make it work, just like everything else in OSM. I'm willing to put effort into licence compatibility (and have made suggestions to LWG, which they've taken up, to ensure CT compatibility with attribution-required licences). Are you? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5815086.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
On 8 December 2010 18:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: John Smith wrote: In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Nice bait and switch... Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?! My point exactly, it's not nice to make slightly misleading statements appear as if an apple and an orange are identical. It'd be nice if those that want to lump the CT in with the ODBL could be consistent, rather than picking and choosing as it benefits them. In your first paragraph you lump ODBL+CT together and then you conveneintly only use ODBL in your second paragraph, please point out if the UK Open Government License is also compatible with ODBL+CT. In my view, yes, it is compatible with ODbL+CT 1.2 (though not 1.0). OGL is an attribution licence and CT 1.2 guarantees attribution within the rights grant to OSMF. It's one thing to give you a pretty flower and tell you it will live forever, but at some point every thing fades away and you end up with reality, rather than half baked guarantees that may not actually be 100% of what was implied or suggested, there is strong doubts that this would actually live up to the expectation and may end up causing more harm than it would ever increase good will in future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbhttp://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb and currently released 1.0 text http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs. Mike At 07:39 PM 5/12/2010, Mike Collinson wrote: Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 20:44, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed Cool. Thanks for the info. it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb and currently released 1.0 text http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs. Thanks. Some suggestions - if you are interested: - a contributor natural person should probably read a natural person - In 4: At Your or the copyright holder’s option should probably have copyright owner's for consistency. - There's an odd or more at the end of clause 5 which I cannot account for. - do you want to delete , except as provided above in Section 1, from clause 6.1 since section 1 provides no warranty? - do you want to change whether written or oral to whether written, oral or otherwise in 7? It may be that any agreement was implied and therefore not written or oral. - do you want to qualify within 3 weeks in clause 3? Such as within 3 weeks of being notified of the vote? Query: how big is the OSMF membership? Would resolution of the members of OSMF not be better since a resolution is a well defined term with rules on how one is conducted, its quorum and so on, whereas a vote might not be understood to be that. This could all be handled elsewhere so it may not be a worry. Style (really feel free to ignore this): I'd feel happier if the heading style was consistent. Me, I like headings in contracts I draft. They make them easier to read. Both rights granted and miscellaneous could be put in the same style as Limitation of Liability. You might also want to global replace You with you except where grammar requires you. Definitions don't _have_ to have initial capital letters, and it makes the contract look less stilted (in my personal opinion). NB: usual disclaimer, though I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice, but merely something written during a rest from playing minecraft. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can submit such data without automatically being in violation of the third party's rights? Well, if a contributor contributes data over which there is some IP right, then that may constitute a form of secondary infringement by the contributor. There's no way to avoid this. Putting a contractual provision requiring the contributor to warrant compliance, won't stop them being liable if they make a mistake (although it might make them more careful). I doubt that imposing a duty on OSMF to remove any data which they discover to be unlawful would help (there's still a high chance of some form of secondary infringement). Imposing a duty to remove any data which would be unlawful for OSMF to distribute whether OSMF knows or not (in other words transferring the warranty to OSMF) would impose an serious burden on OSMF to guard contributors from their own mistakes. It could be done, but it would require serious thought. So, I think your objection has substance, but it is directed at the wrong thing. (I have the same doubt about not guaranteeing compatibility with future OSM licenses) Well, that's an impossibility (its hard enough to check compatibility with existing licenses). If OSMF agrees to make reasonable efforts to remove offending data, that should be enough to absolve any contributor of secondary liability. We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others may be enough to do the trick. Some relatively modest statement such as and we will do our best to make sure that we do or words to that effect would be even better. Bear in mind that secondary liability requires something like authorisation or joint infringement. Neither of those is likely where a contributor, in good faith, submits data on the basis that OSMF does not wish to violate IP rights. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can submit such data without automatically being in violation of the third party's rights? Well, if a contributor contributes data over which there is some IP right, then that may constitute a form of secondary infringement by the contributor. There's no way to avoid this. Putting a contractual provision requiring the contributor to warrant compliance, won't stop them being liable if they make a mistake (although it might make them more careful). I doubt that imposing a duty on OSMF to remove any data which they discover to be unlawful would help (there's still a high chance of some form of secondary infringement). Imposing a duty to remove any data which would be unlawful for OSMF to distribute whether OSMF knows or not (in other words transferring the warranty to OSMF) would impose an serious burden on OSMF to guard contributors from their own mistakes. It could be done, but it would require serious thought. So, I think your objection has substance, but it is directed at the wrong thing. Thanks for the explanation. Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. (I have the same doubt about not guaranteeing compatibility with future OSM licenses) Well, that's an impossibility (its hard enough to check compatibility with existing licenses). If OSMF agrees to make reasonable efforts to remove offending data, that should be enough to absolve any contributor of secondary liability. We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others may be enough to do the trick. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the explanation. Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an No. Its purpose is to expressly state that the contributor does not guarantee to OSMF that it would be lawful for OSMF to licence the data. Earlier versions asked the contributor to give a warranty that the contribution was free of others' IP rights. My understanding is that that was felt to be unfair to contributors (who are after all not lawyers). What it does not do is prevent the contributor from being liable to third parties in some way. *That* would be difficult to do since its not in OSMF's power to absolve the contributor from any liability they might have. So the existing state of affairs is: - contributors contribute at their own risk, if the act of contributing is itself an infringement, that's their problem - OSMF assumes any risk of publication of that data and cannot sue a contributor if they wrongly contribute data which later turns out to be incompatible with one or more of OSMF's licences - whether a contributor could be liable for some kind of secondary liability is very difficult to say since IP laws vary worldwide and so do third party licenses, my sense is that the risk is small since the wording is not easily compatible with the idea of authorisation In particular the you do not need to guarantee... looks to me to count against authorisation. If the contributor did guarantee that would look more like authorising OSMF to do what it should not do. As I said, some reasonable obligation on OSMF to try to avoid IP violations might do the trick. But you want to be careful about imposing too onerous a duty on OSMF. effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell I'm not sure what you mean by terminating. Breach of contract does not ordinarily terminate the contract. Even a fundamental breach doesn't necessarily do so. a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. No. That isn't how English contract law works. The current wording is intended to imply (sure its not express, but the goal is fairly short wording I understand it) that OSMF doesn't have any obligations to relicense the data if it would be unlawful. That's what 1(b) does. 1(a) does a different job. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? I think it would be an enormous stretch for any IP owner to try to show secondary liability on the contributor in that case. Its something that could be nailed down even further of course. If I was drafting the contributor terms with certainty (rather than brevity) in mind, they'd be much much longer and there'd be no doubt in anyone's mind what they did - that is in the mind's of those who bother to read contracts and that is the problem. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 4. Data Imports Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. Please Assume Good Faith. Also remember that the LWG meets once a week. And that they do read this list. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 4. Data Imports Importer in that context sits better than mapper. The person who imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has always been the case. The import guidelines strongly advise: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines Imports like BP service stations Australia are a problem, because the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or ANY future license. Your remark of LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it. doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been doing. Kind regards Grant LWG member. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an No. Its purpose is to expressly state that the contributor does not guarantee to OSMF that it would be lawful for OSMF to licence the data. Earlier versions asked the contributor to give a warranty that the contribution was free of others' IP rights. My understanding is that that was felt to be unfair to contributors (who are after all not lawyers). Ah, I guess this makes sense although it didn't compute for me because if it's difficult for the contributor to guarantee that the license is compatible then it's even more difficult for OSMF who won't even know the origin of the data. (So if some data ends up being licensed by OSMF it'll be difficult to point to the basis on which it was decided to be ok (other than optimism). But from your explanation I understand that the OSMF is most likely to receive the blame for distribution of the content that is against the license given by the original author) What it does not do is prevent the contributor from being liable to third parties in some way. *That* would be difficult to do since its not in OSMF's power to absolve the contributor from any liability they might have. Of course. So the existing state of affairs is: - contributors contribute at their own risk, if the act of contributing is itself an infringement, that's their problem - OSMF assumes any risk of publication of that data and cannot sue a contributor if they wrongly contribute data which later turns out to be incompatible with one or more of OSMF's licences - whether a contributor could be liable for some kind of secondary liability is very difficult to say since IP laws vary worldwide and so do third party licenses, my sense is that the risk is small since the wording is not easily compatible with the idea of authorisation In particular the you do not need to guarantee... looks to me to count against authorisation. If the contributor did guarantee that would look more like authorising OSMF to do what it should not do. As I said, some reasonable obligation on OSMF to try to avoid IP violations might do the trick. But you want to be careful about imposing too onerous a duty on OSMF. Yes, but you also want someone to be on that duty in the end (or maybe that's not needed, I don't know). effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. Ah that's not what I mean. Just that that sentence to me initally read as we allow you to contribute any data (possibly despite what others say), although we may remove it, but I see this is just me. I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell I'm not sure what you mean by terminating. Breach of contract does not ordinarily terminate the contract. Even a fundamental breach doesn't necessarily do so. You're right, I now see that there's nothing about termination in the document. a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. No. That isn't how English contract law works. The current wording is intended to imply (sure its not express, but the goal is fairly short wording I understand it) that OSMF doesn't have any obligations to relicense the data if it would be unlawful. That's what 1(b) does. 1(a) does a different job. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? I think it would be an enormous stretch for any IP owner to try to show secondary liability on the contributor in that case. Its something that could be nailed down even further of course. If I was drafting the contributor terms with certainty (rather than brevity) in mind, they'd be much much longer and there'd be no doubt in anyone's mind what they did - that is in the mind's of those who bother to read contracts and that is the problem. So the answer is that most likely the OSMF may be liable. I'm interested in this because I have submitted data collected by other people and now they may grant me an ODbL license on it (in addition to CC-By-SA) so that I can accept the contributor terms (and in the
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Rob I'm not assuming anything. But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM community) don't have an handle on imports in any respect. This is mainly due to a rather laisser faire approach in the past, and simply that getting correct and formal approval for an import is, both for the donor and the importer, a lot of work (and more so in the future with a rather complex license on the OSM side of things). Looking forward, I don't see anyway around a more strict regime. Clearly that will put more burden on the OSMF and make imports less attractive, but I can't say that that is a bad thing. Simon - Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. Please Assume Good Faith. Also remember that the LWG meets once a week. And that they do read this list. - Rob. ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
Grant There's a lot of data out there that has licenses that at least superficially may seem to be compatible with the OSM license. Using such data sources is very attractive to some mappers, for a large number of reasons, not the least that it's simply a lot less work than going out and mapping stuff yourself. Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with some degree of certainty is just a joke. And as I pointed out previously, getting formal authorization tends to be so much work, that it doesn't even happen in cases where the proper contacts are there. I know you've been doing work on the Import Catalogue and I hope you realize that it at least for the regions where I have some knowledge it is missing a quite lot of stuff, in fact it more like the tip of an iceberg. Since there's nothing particularly special about where I live, I have to assume it that it's going to be similar elsewhere. Luckily most of it is tracing from orthophotos, but I just noticed it's missing a recent import of 30'000 public transport stops (don't panic, the license is probably ok (see above) and I'll ask the importers to add it to the list). Simon - Original Message - From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:43 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 4. Data Imports Importer in that context sits better than mapper. The person who imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has always been the case. The import guidelines strongly advise: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines Imports like BP service stations Australia are a problem, because the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or ANY future license. Your remark of LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it. doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been doing. Kind regards Grant LWG member. ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
Mike insection 4 4. At Your or the copyright holder's option, probably should be You not Your David - Original Message - From: Mike Collinson To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb and currently released 1.0 text http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs. Mike At 07:39 PM 5/12/2010, Mike Collinson wrote: Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 -- ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
Simon Poole wrote: Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with some degree of certainty is just a joke. Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a small number of licences. It isn't beyond the skills of the community (and the professional hired help that OSMF is able to arrange) to say whether these few licences are compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of future mappers. In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5813959.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 8 December 2010 11:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of future mappers. In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Nice bait and switch... In your first paragraph you lump ODBL+CT together and then you conveneintly only use ODBL in your second paragraph, please point out if the UK Open Government License is also compatible with ODBL+CT. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. Could you : a) explain the above last paragraph; and b) define us; is it OSM contributors, OSM data users, or some other us Us would be every party that receives a copy of OSM, contributors or non-contributors. Under the proposed CT 1.2 (*), everyone who receives a copy of OSM has the same rights. OSMF doesn't have special rights which the rest of us don't have. I'm not sure that it is true that under the current (1.2) proposed CT's everyone has the same rights as OSMF. Is it not the case that it is very probable that everyone else has MORE rights than OSMF. Under section 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, etc OSMF is bound by sections 3 4, but these sections only apply to OSMF. Therefore whilst OSMF's rights are limited, by agreeing to the CT's you grant everyone else a pretty much unlimited licence to your contributions. David (*) ...as I last read it. There have in the past been changes made to the CT 1.2 without incrementing the version number, so I have no idea what it *currently* says. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no interpretation where the footing is equal or identical, but I see what you mean. Okay, true. I still think it accomplishes something very important which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA. OSMF doesn't get any special rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have. My understanding was that this was not the intended outcome - that is that OSM data should not be freely usable by everybody who receives it. You must know more than I do, because I don't think you can speculate on the intent of a phrase without at least knowing who added it. It very well may have been added precisely for the effect of making everything effectively PD. I know that's the only reason I supported CT 1.2, though I wasn't dumb enough (this time) to point it out. As I have already said, I'm not sure that your interpretation is 100% certain. The CT's at the moment place an obligation on OSMF to licence under one of a series of licences, which would be an odd requirement if such a licence were superfluous. It's not superfluous, because the obligation on OSMF is to license the contents *as part of a database*. The ODbL applies to *the database*, not the contents. (In some/most/all jurisdictions, if you don't agree to it, you can probably ignore it, because there aren't any rights in the database. But probably in at least some jurisdictions you can't ignore it, due to sui generis database rights and/or sweat of the brow copyright in the database itself). Yes, it makes the DbCL part superfluous, but as I've explained before the DbCL, if *it* does not make the work effectively PD, is itself superfluous. And if you look at the history, the DbCL language was added at the same time the and any party that receives your contents was taken out (http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=231oldid=204 which, by the way, was *after* the vote). In any case, even if the requirement were superfluous (which, as I explained, it isn't), I don't see any alternative explanation. (*) It has been pointed out previously that we should probably *require* OSMF to release the database under a free license, rather than merely *allow* them to, but as it stands they may, but don't have to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 3 December 2010 14:14, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Okay, true. I still think it accomplishes something very important which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA. OSMF doesn't get any special rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have. Ah, I see, and I'm fairly sure that wasn't what those I've spoken to want to achieve, but I may be wrong and I'm happy to be corrected. You must know more than I do, because I don't think you can speculate on the intent of a phrase without at least knowing who added it. It That's what a court would have to do of course, but it may be that we disagree on something else (see below). very well may have been added precisely for the effect of making everything effectively PD. I know that's the only reason I supported CT 1.2, though I wasn't dumb enough (this time) to point it out. Yes. I am fairly clear that some people don't want to make OSM effectively PD - they do want to restrict its usage that is why ODbL is being used (otherwise why bother with it)? It's not superfluous, because the obligation on OSMF is to license the contents *as part of a database*. The ODbL applies to *the database*, not the contents. (In some/most/all jurisdictions, if you don't agree to it, you can probably ignore it, because there aren't any rights in the database. But probably in at least some jurisdictions you can't ignore it, due to sui generis database rights and/or sweat of the brow copyright in the database itself). Yes, it makes the DbCL part superfluous, but as I've explained before the DbCL, if *it* does not make the work effectively PD, is itself superfluous. And if you look at the history, the DbCL language was added at the same time the and any party that receives your contents was taken out (http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=231oldid=204 which, by the way, was *after* the vote). Well, that's not the whole story (from a legal analytic point of view) - but I'm sure you know that. The extra problem is that it may be (it seems likely to me) that the only sui generis database rights (or for that matter database copyright, though that seems like a long short to me in the jurisdictions I know) that OSMF is likely to have now is that which it is licensed to sublicense under the contributor terms. If all the CT's give to OSMF is also given to everyone (who receives the contents, which is of course anyone relevant) then the ODbL is completely superfluous since ODbL can't restrict that which is already permitted by another means (or can't usefully do so) even in countries with a sui generis right. If that's the intent then there's no point at all in messing around with paragraph 3 which can just be removed. In any case, even if the requirement were superfluous (which, as I explained, it isn't), I don't see any alternative explanation. A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). (*) It has been pointed out previously that we should probably *require* OSMF to release the database under a free license, rather than merely *allow* them to, but as it stands they may, but don't have to. H, at the moment paragraph 3 requires OSMF to use or sublicense the contents, which isn't quite the same thing as release I'll grant you, but there is some obligation in there. If I were instructed by OSMF I'd probably suggest that wasn't what was wanted. Its an open ended commitment, which is always a bad thing. In general one wants to at least make the obligations mutual. The obligation is qualified by 1(b) though. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
- Original Message - From: Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 [snipped for brevity] Yes. I am fairly clear that some people don't want to make OSM effectively PD - they do want to restrict its usage that is why ODbL is being used (otherwise why bother with it)? Francis ( I realise that you are not necessarily advocating a move to PD) The fact is that the OSM board have no mandate to move OSM to PD, irrespective of what some people may want. When the vote by OSM members was taken last year the New Licence Proposal [1] stated: 1) From the second paragraph The License Working Group, with the approval of the OpenStreetMap Foundation board of directors, is asking the full membership of the Foundation whether or not to upgrade to the Open Database License 1.0, an attribution, share-alike license specifically designed for databases. 2) from the first section of the section headed What is the licence recommendation - ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems 3) From the section headed is this the same as CC-By-SA - It is similar in intent and basic form. 4) From the actual wording of the vote found later in the same document OpenStreetMap is moving from its existing license to the Open Database License, which continues the attribution and share-alike licensing features but is specifically designed for open databases. So, at the time the OSMF was given a mandate to proceed with the licence change, it was on the basis that the license chosen would have CC-BY-SA qualities. Furthermore when the template of the letter to big data donors was written it stated OpenStreetMap is upgrading its data license from CC-By-SA v2 to ODbL v1, Open Database License, v1, a license specifically written for open databases and data. The underlying principles remain the same: the data can be used freely by anyone as long as there is attribution and that published enhancements are also shared without fee. If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD then a) they should say so b) they should ask OSMF members for a mandate to do so c) They should explain to data donors this is what is happening. What should not happen is a process of trying to move to PD seriptiously as some have suggested. David [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Bulk_Import_Support_Page#Template_Letter_.28_Formal_approach_to_big_data_donors.29 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. If you spent more than 34 seconds thinking about it you'd realise that the best possible route for [Steve Coast] would be Public Domain so he could do whatever he wanted. Really. Think about it. - Steve Coast ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How could it be an accident? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How could it be an accident? I'm a member of Licensing Working Group... I haven't followed this whole thread yet, but if there is a mistake it is a cocked up, not malicious. Just to clarify, I don't claim or even believe there was any maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT. However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, unintended consequences are unenforcible. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, unintended consequences are unenforcible. And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say that I don't claim or even believe there was any maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 2 December 2010 01:36, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Damn. I was hoping no one was going to notice that before the terms went into effect :). I'm pretty sure I pointed out difficulties with the wording a reasonably long time ago. Two remarks: - A court might interpret it in context to mean merely that OSMF may grant these rights to others (on the ground that if it were intended to permit anyone downloading the contributed data to receive the same rights as OSMF that would make nonsense of paragraph 3). I wouldn't put too high a probability on that happening. - OSMF may itself have rights in the data. A point we have discussed before is whether OSMF has any database rights of its own. I don't know the details of the factual situation, but from what has been said that seems unlikely, though things may change (OSMF's role may not stay static over the years). If OSMF did have its own rights then it would be possible to infringe them even with permission from the contributors. So, its not quite as simple as making the data PD, but it comes close. The better question to ask at this stage is, what is it for not what does it do? I didn't draft or propose this wording, but someone must have done and someone, or some people, must have an idea of what its function is supposed to be. It may be that a better wording to do (whatever it turns out to be for) will solve the problem, or it may be that there's a policy argument, which can be sorted out first before you get to the wording. Anyway, I hope that helps. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: The better question to ask at this stage is, what is it for not what does it do? I didn't draft or propose this wording, but someone must have done and someone, or some people, must have an idea of what its function is supposed to be. It may be that a better wording to do (whatever it turns out to be for) will solve the problem, or it may be that there's a policy argument, which can be sorted out first before you get to the wording. I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. Could you : a) explain the above last paragraph; and b) define us; is it OSM contributors, OSM data users, or some other us David ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. Could you : a) explain the above last paragraph; and b) define us; is it OSM contributors, OSM data users, or some other us Us would be every party that receives a copy of OSM, contributors or non-contributors. Under the proposed CT 1.2 (*), everyone who receives a copy of OSM has the same rights. OSMF doesn't have special rights which the rest of us don't have. (*) ...as I last read it. There have in the past been changes made to the CT 1.2 without incrementing the version number, so I have no idea what it *currently* says. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no interpretation where the footing is equal or identical, but I see what you mean. My understanding was that this was not the intended outcome - that is that OSM data should not be freely usable by everybody who receives it. As I have already said, I'm not sure that your interpretation is 100% certain. The CT's at the moment place an obligation on OSMF to licence under one of a series of licences, which would be an odd requirement if such a licence were superfluous. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 2 December 2010 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, fx99 wrote: 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, . can somebody explain to me, who is meant by any party that receives Your Contents ? Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads your contents from the OSMF servers? But that would mean that anyone who downloads the content is granted two licenses, one by the OSMF and one You. In effect would the license the OSMF chooses for the database contents (the DBcL) make any difference? Since the user can instead use the worldwide (...) license do anything resitricted by copyright etc. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, fx99 wrote: 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, . can somebody explain to me, who is meant by any party that receives Your Contents ? Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads your contents from the OSMF servers? How does this grant interact with 3? Without 3 it would effectively PD the data wouldn't it? Even with 3 it will effectively PD the data. Damn. I was hoping no one was going to notice that before the terms went into effect :). I appreciate that the DbCl effectively does this as well, and that in both cases the ODbL is what adds the share-alike; I'm just checking. ;-) You can't add share-alike to something which is already public domain. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
