Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Did anybody else read this and also think, Monkey see 'CT', monkey respond with irrelevant wiki page.? Steve: Is right, because he stuck to the stated facts. Nick: Is right because his full statement ended with the line However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this wish. He is right, because it does not. Why did Grant remove this line, when Steve left it in? Grant: Is making an even bigger arse of himself even than I may have thought of him beforehand. My 8.5 cents. Ban me! Tim. On 21/06/11 18:39, Grant Slater wrote: On 21 June 2011 05:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. OpenStreetMap.org has had Contributor Terms for at least the last 5 years. See the CTs history here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 21 June 2011 09:39, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 21 June 2011 05:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. OpenStreetMap.org has had Contributor Terms for at least the last 5 years. See the CTs history here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History Yes, sorry guys. As has been politely pointed out in thread I have missed the point here with the CTs history text. Apologies the link is irrelevant to thread. / Grant Part of the Evil Lizard People ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. They're completely opposite. It's not just looking for problems. If Nearmap had wanted those contributions to be relicensable under some future licence, they would have said so. They said the opposite: under the terms in place...at the relevant time. *Not* under any licence [the OSMF] chooses at any time. If lawyers drafted the statement, they meant what they said. At best, I'm interpreting it as existing contributions are licensed under CC-BY-SA and/or ODbL, and that's ok. If you want to change the licence again in the future, we'll talk. I mean, Nearmap have never said they have a problem with ODbL, nor do they have a problem with future relicensing *per se*. They have a problem with allowing unspecified future licensing without power of veto. So...I'm looking at this as a sort of stay of execution. The data can stay in OSM until the licence changes again, which could be a few years, it could be a long time. Who knows what will happen then, or what it will mean if Nearmap is no longer around for some reason. Remember we're talking about a terms of use issue, not a licensing issue. Steve On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:01 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: So those guys put out a legal statement and an employee even gave you his interpretation on this list, which you can cite in court if you want. I think you're pretty solid and it feels like people are just looking for problems no matter what is done or said. :-( Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 16, 2011, at 0:44, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this wish. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being I'm still finding it a bit hard to understand exactly what is meant by can remain in the OSM db. Is the following statement correct? Nearmap-derived contributions prior to June 17 were licensed CC-BY-SA*, and will remain part of the main, actively developed and distributed OSM database even when it changes to ODbL, and Nearmap is fine with that. However, they refuse to allow any contributions under the new Contributor Terms, because those call for unspecified future relicensing. Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is ODbL considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could someone confirm?) Steve * Or ODbL, depending on the contributor and time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
So those guys put out a legal statement and an employee even gave you his interpretation on this list, which you can cite in court if you want. I think you're pretty solid and it feels like people are just looking for problems no matter what is done or said. :-( Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 16, 2011, at 0:44, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this wish. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 16 June 2011 14:48, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: That it was drafted, carefully, by a lawyer I do not doubt. But lawyers draft things on instruction to achieve particular goals. My understanding from Ben's comment is that one of the goals of nearmap is that derived works are distributed only under CC-BY-SA. The second paragraph does that job well as far as I can see and prevents OSM from relicensing nearmap data under ODbL. The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to comment on how the statement may or may not achieve that; I'm not qualified to interpret it. All I can do is make it clear that it was drafted to explicitly allow derived data to stay in the database. I've seen the background correspondence about it, and I know the lawyers involved were well aware of the CTs, the OdBL, the future licence terms, etc, when they drafted it. On 16 June 2011 17:02, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Ben, thanks for the offer, but worded as it is I still don't find that compatible with OSMF's terms and conditions. Well, a bunch of people here put real effort into finding a way to avoid large amounts of NearMap-derived data being deleted by addressing the licence incompatibility, but we are all busy with many tasks that have to be given a higher priority than this, so I doubt very much that there can be any more legal work done on our side to clarify this further. I'm sure that there could be a long and detailed discussion on whether the statement achieves that but I say again: that's exactly what it was intended to achive and it was written by our lawyers to do just that. :) Regards Ben ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Does it? I haven't agreed to the CTs, therefore my NearMap tracings are CC-BY-SA, and hence will be purged from the database in Phase 5. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 10:39 +0800, James Andrewartha wrote: On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Does it? I haven't agreed to the CTs, therefore my NearMap tracings are CC-BY-SA, and hence will be purged from the database in Phase 5. Bens statement said: may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual In other words, nearmap allows you to make your own mind up in regards to derived data youve contributed. If you havent agreed to CTs, then your work will be removed, but if you wish to agree you are now not breaching any existing rights. So I guess that cuts down the amount of dirty data OSM will have in their DB, it doesnt remove it completely, but there seems to be no interest in a 100% clean db, as long as 99% is good enough. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 15 June 2011 11:56, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 10:39 +0800, James Andrewartha wrote: On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Does it? I haven't agreed to the CTs, therefore my NearMap tracings are CC-BY-SA, and hence will be purged from the database in Phase 5. Bens statement said: may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual In other words, nearmap allows you to make your own mind up in regards to derived data youve contributed. If you havent agreed to CTs, then your work will be removed, but if you wish to agree you are now not breaching any existing rights. So I guess that cuts down the amount of dirty data OSM will have in their DB, it doesnt remove it completely, but there seems to be no interest in a 100% clean db, as long as 99% is good enough. The words immediately following that quote are quite relevant: may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. So only contributions a user made after the CT/ODbL was agreed to by that user (and before June 17 2011) can be kept. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
