[Talk-gb-thenorth] List moderator
Hi lists, Sadly, I don’t foresee much future involvement with OSM, so I’m looking for someone to take over moderation of talk-gb-thenorth. You only have to see the months missing from the archives[1] to see that it is a very low traffic list. (The two messages last year were from me forwarding event details—is it worth keeping the list running?) Mostly it’s just discarding spam (or leaving it to be automatically discarded), and IIRC there hasn’t been a spark to ignite a flame since the list was created. Tim Waters (aka Chippy) is also a moderator. [1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-thenorth/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-gb-thenorth mailing list Talk-gb-thenorth@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-thenorth
[Talk-GB] List moderator
Hi lists, Sadly, I don’t foresee much future involvement with OSM, so I’m looking for someone to take over moderation of talk-gb-thenorth. You only have to see the months missing from the archives[1] to see that it is a very low traffic list. (The two messages last year were from me forwarding event details—is it worth keeping the list running?) Mostly it’s just discarding spam (or leaving it to be automatically discarded), and IIRC there hasn’t been a spark to ignite a flame since the list was created. Tim Waters (aka Chippy) is also a moderator. [1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-thenorth/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OpenStreetMap Mapping Party this weekend (17-18 Sep)
OpenStreetMap Mapping Party, 17-18 September, Manchester There’ll be a workshop at MadLab[1] and a mapping party based at Arcspace, St Wilfred’s[2]. See attached for details. [1]: http://osm.org/go/evgpgP0y?m=1 [2]: http://osm.org/go/evgoZ7eb?m=1 Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ---BeginMessage--- *** Apologies for cross-posting *** There is going to be a 2-day mapping party this weekend at MadLab in conjunction with the Software Freedom Day and the Hackademia week. For more details please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_Weekend http://www.lml.lse.ac.uk/~patrick/hackademia//styled-12/ Hope to see you there. Best wishes, Yuwei -- Yuwei Lin | yuwei at ylin dot org http://www.ylin.org ___ Fsuk-manchester mailing list fsuk-manches...@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester ---End Message--- signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:59:30PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT. In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did the work. So why should i grant special rights to the OSMF via the CT? A good point about the CC-BY-SA, CC0, PD, GPL or BSD is that everybody gets the same rights. Not so with the current relicensing. With stating that my contributions are PD/CC0 i grant everybody the same rights. The OSMF has stated that they going to delete my contributions as i refused to grant special rights to the OSMF. I couldn’t have said this better myself. I think I tried to make this point in the past, but clearly didn’t get the message across. No central organisation should be granted special rights. The grants are included because of a fear that things will change in the future, and that OSMF won’t be able to manage the change (not unbelievable, considering current circumstances). This is the same sort of fear that makes governments introduce excessive powers, and then come to abuse them. On the one hand, I would like to continue to contribute to OpenStreetMap as a free geodata project; on the other, I want no part in any organisation, nor to support an organisation, that seeks to obtain special powers over anybody else. Does this only sound suspicious for me? No. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:29:51PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote: On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: No, it would be simpler for OSM. If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give it to anyone under any terms. Why would you not contribute under the new CTs if you're willing to accept any terms? The CTs constitute an agreement between the contributor and OSMF. The ODbL also includes a contractual element. For whatever reason, people may not wish to even enter such a relationship. A plain licence for the data does not involve a contractual relationship as far as my understanding of copyright (and I assume database right) licensing goes. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:40:39PM +, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I assume that the twice a year change and the funny, alliterative animal names are references to Ubuntu Linux. Note that, while each release of Ubuntu has its own name, the Ubuntu logo has remained unchanged for years. The Ubuntu logo changed last year, I believe. Old: “Circle of friends” is multi‐coloured, typeface is rounded. http://www.lions-wing.net/lessons/ubuntu3/UbuntuLogo.png New: “Circle of friends” is encased in a circle, one colour, typeface is pointy (technical term). https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Brand#Logos http://design.canonical.com/the-toolkit/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Thanks Grant, I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe unclear: What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor terms mean: From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. As written down it seems opposite to the OSMF statutes and memorandum... Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. “commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:37:19AM +, Thomas Davie wrote: As an aside – I only recently ticked the box because I had in error thought that I'd done it a long time ago. Perhaps it would be intelligent to nag users more about moving over. If we really want to push it, simply state that we won't accept more contributions until they accept the ODbL. Please don’t confuse people who don’t accept the ODbL (plus DbCL) with those who don’t accept the CTs plus the ODbL (plus the DbCL). The ODbL, IMO, is a good fit, the CTs aren’t (although I have to admit not having evaluated the most recent revision yet). Not that it makes any difference to the general agreement/non‐agreement of OSM’s terms. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 01:00:26PM +, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote: On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, […] this is no way different from GPL released software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html Reading the link it looks like a very different situation. It’s different. The FSF requires you assign copyright to them (for their projects), and promises that they will make it free software (so you have the rights given by the free software licence used) and on request they will grant you back the non‐exclusive rights to do whatever you see fit with the software. This makes it easier for them to enforce copyright because they are now the copyright holders. It also allows them to re‐license, but they have promised by contractual agreement to release the software with only a licence that gives the freedoms that the organisation is founded on (by explicitly stating them, not by stating “a free software licence” or similar). OSMF is asking you to grant them non‐exclusive rights, essentially to do as they see fit, but you remain the copyright holder (where there is any copyright). I’m unclear on how copyright can be enforced in this situation, but the CTs also include a grant to sue for infringement. The OSMF clearly are not using the CT for the same reasons the FSF require copyright assignment. To OSMF it seems to be largely a vehicle to prevent them from being able to change the licence. I of course meant “it seems to be largely a vehicle to allow them to change the licence”, d’oh! From reading the lists, and OSMF minutes, this is the impression I get. Copyright enforcement, while included in the CTs, is secondary. Much of the discussion has revolved around the need for the ability to re‐ license, although that may be because it is one of the most contested parts of the CTs. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:25:05AM +0100, Simone Cortesi wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy considering their track record to date. I'm willing to do a certain amount of work to make sure the data I've provided over the years isn't lost, but if they jerk me around too much or make it too hard I'll just write it off as a loss and spend my free time somewhere it's appreciated. this is no way different from GPL released software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html That’s not a requirement for using the GPL to license software. That article talks about why they think copyright assignment is a good idea (but not any cons), and that it is required for projects under the umbrella of the FSF, such as the GNU Project. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
[Also posted to legal-talk, I suggest follow-ups go there.] In short… On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote: On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, […] this is no way different from GPL released software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html Reading the link it looks like a very different situation. It’s different. The OSMF clearly are not using the CT for the same reasons the FSF require copyright assignment. To OSMF it seems to be largely a vehicle to prevent them from being able to change the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be limited by it? No. I said I don’t think it is sufficient, a different thing entirely. I would actually prefer the licence choice to be more limited than “anything that meets the OKD”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM I agree. doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. You are wrong in thinking that I am dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing the OKD would be a no-brainer. To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data. You think: OSM should not be limited by an external definition. OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting, You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a good idea for OSMF to reference it). I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software many, if any, favours. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote: I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that way. This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD. So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred from it being open to debate, and that the OKD would limit this)? I’m struggling to make sense of this. I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again: Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use, analyse, modify, and redistribute? If the answer is “no”, what does it mean? If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition satisfy the OKD? In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”? Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”? Where is it lacking? I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science Commons protocal for open access too? Anything else? I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is needed. ;-) I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet: Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect? The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses. I will also add: When defining free software we refer to the free software definition. It does not limit or harm software that is intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?) If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. Fear, uncertainty and what? Now you’re getting it! :) My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* definition should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should. Why leave it undefined? Is this another way of saying we leave it wide open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in future? If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree with that approach. Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged, and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage at the time. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Defining free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)
Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my thinking. On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote: Why leave it undefined? To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-) Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say “it’s the OKD, stupid!” :) To avoid *another* dependency on another project. As far as I am aware the text is licensed under CC by-sa, and should OKFN change course, or jump ship, OSM could always fork the definition. In general, I’m not averse to depending on organisations such as OKFN, the FSF, OSI, and Debian to host and maintain definitions. It’s very nice to be able to just point at them and just say “that’s how we define it” and move on, concentrating on our own projects real aims. To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and AGPL opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r. I’ve had people similarly tell me that, despite claiming they would not add further restrictions to future licences, the FSF did just that with GPL v3 because it restricts how software producers can package and distribute their products. Forget about the freedoms of end users! To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by self-identified time-wasters. Meh, they can waste their time. This is just one of those things where I would say we just pick a definition then move on. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)
[I’ve followed up Francis’ post, but also quoted from another sub‐thread, because I think his post includes a response to that.] On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:17:50AM +, I wrote: If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:28:31AM +, Francis Davey wrote: Lastly: there's no such thing in English law as a legal definition in a contract. Contract construction is a matter of fact not law. You can import legal definitions expressly if you want (from a statute say) but there's no legal rules on what words mean. A rookie mistake of junior counsel is to cite authorities where a word X was given one meaning in support of its meaning, assuming this gives them a home run. It doesn't. Fine, but shouldn’t the parties to the contract at least agree what the terms mean, especially those that may be less obvious to another should there be any dispute? So, free and open may not be a very tightly defined expression. Like everything else it has fuzzy edges. Maybe too fuzzy. That doesn't make it unenforceable. If ODbL tried to use a commercial licence which was highly restrictive, that would violate the CT's. But it does give quite a bit of leeway. How much leeway it should give is not a legal, but a policy, question, which is not my area. I would be happier if it pointed to a definition of “free and open” that we can agree on akin to the Free Software Definition. I don’t believe it guarantees enough freedoms to the next person, but I would be happier if the Open Knowledge Definition were explicitly referred to: http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
In general, I think you completely miss the point. Wherever you might like me to go, I am part of the community, so are all of the other people who disagree with you. If a small number of people coming up with the CTs wants to ignore me and others for the sake of getting something out, then I don’t think they are acting in the best interests of the community. *I* can compromise to form something agreeable, can you/they? On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:54:08AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote: We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards the people than any central body, including OSMF. This is not how I see it. I think the balance needs to be towards the project as a whole, not towards the individual and his whims. […] I think it is obvious that the more you assert and the less you grant, the less you trust the community. I've been called a communist for this but I believe that in our project, it is necessary to drop the selfish thought of your contribution being your personal property that you need to assert rights over because you cannot trust the community to do the right thing with it. That’s really just a load of bollocks, and can be turned on its head. In fact, I swore I just said that the other way around. Oh yes, it’s in the bit of my email you quoted above! Anyway, the rights are granted to the OSMF, who on the face of it are acting on behalf of the community, but they are *not* the community. If we’re trusting the community, which, believe it or not, is something I wholly support, then there doesn’t need to be a broad rights grant, and there doesn’t need to be a relicensing clause, because if it ever again comes to the point that we need to change things like this, then the whole community can be called upon to decide, not some abitrary fraction of it, not based on whether they are still actively contributing (old contributors are still contributors). If you are not prepared to *give* your data to OSM - if you'd rather only *lend* your data so you can sit and watch how the project develops and withdraw your contribution should they take what you view to be a wrong step in the future - then maybe you aren't ready for a large, interconnected, collaborative project like this. I’m not prepared to give my data to OSM while it insists it needs these broad rights. I am prepared to give my data to OSM when I feel it will act within constraints. The permissions I grant to OSM are the same as the permissions I grant to anyone else when individually licensing, and they are given when certain conditions are met, like when individually licensing. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors, then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a change. It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible, and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again. If Creative Commons (to take the current licence) or ODC (to take the next one) suddenly turn evil, are unable to react to changes in the law, or produce a licence that you don't like, OSM(F) should be able to react to that in more than a token way. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was explicitly referenced. I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another party's definitions. They should be free to find their own. How do you find the OKD limiting? To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. Well, I would be, but in light of what I have just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. It's not paranoia. It's a recognition that the task has been necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. May be. Yes, back to the fear, I see. The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad “free and open licence” of the CTs. A good example of a very successful project that decided it was cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. I don’t see how that affects this. The kernel developers (rather Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The above issues are completely irrelevant. I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only, and have always accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence. Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally unnecessary. But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once. Yay, more fear. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote: Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards the people than any central body, including OSMF. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. Or whatever licence takes its place should ⅔ of “active” contributors decide. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote: On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote: About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority of us in the project are open data, open source and free software advocates. To us 'Free' means libré gratis and 'open' is being able to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on our terms. If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote: Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. Firstly, it’s not clear that click through agreements are valid in the UK. They might be in the US, but US != everywhere. Secondly, I think the question was more “what evidence do you have to say I agreed to this” than “I’ve clicked this, but I don’t think it’s valid”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:22:26AM +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: You forgot to say that talk is for matters that mappers wish to discuss with the whole community. Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk. Not that the whole community reads talk anyway, but… I hereby notify the whole community (on talk) that there is a plethora of mailing lists covering various topics, listed at the following places: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists There, now the whole community (on talk) should be aware of the lists. Any posting of topics specifically covered by a list is now not only arrogant, but demeaning to the whole community (on talk) in that they are assumed to be incapable of subscribing to another list and choosing what subjects to listen to. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases (including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section 4.4) I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible licence improvements without overstepping the mark. I can agree to something that is essentially an incremental upgrade, but not for an arbitrary licence switch. I have some trust (possibly baseless) that OKFN would incrementally improve the ODbL (even better if they formally state that they would only ever incrementally update the licence). However, the CTs “explicitly” give the option of a switch to an arbitrary free and open licence, which still gives the option of a licence that is fundamentally different. “Free and open”, as well as being a vague term that I doubt has any formal legal definition (please correct me if I’m wrong), does not magically make all such licences the same, as shown by the various incompatibilities between so‐called “free” or “open source” software licences. Now who exactly decides when to issue a later version of ODbL or what makes a license compatible isn't made explicit, but I think it is safe to say that an upgrade along that path would be possible with a lot less eyes watching than an upgrade under the upgrade per clause 3 of the CT! So, you advocate having two upgrade paths, including what you consider a more stealthy upgrade path, rather than just the one? I don’t see how that’s any better. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some new users will be shuned away while those existing users are allowed to contribute to the project. I think everyone should be treated fairly, regardless of whether some people signed up earlier than others. Occasionally I see somebody write something sensible, and this is one of those occasions. Yes, all users (contributors?) should be treated the same, regardless of when they joined. The OSMF, after member “vote”, is committed to putting up the new licence for community adoption. In doing this, it has confused itself with supporting the process and supporting the licence itself. It goes even further, not necessarily directly by OSMF members, but most likely influenced by it, to state such things as “we are changing the license”. I generally consider “adoption” as something done by choice, but this has apparently already been decided for the community. Requiring new users to sign up to the new CTs just adds bias to the adoption of the new licence. I see the ODbL (+DbCL) as an enhancement to the current situation (although I despise the CTs), but manipulating it so that it gets any advantage like this is just wrong. I’d like to see all mandatory “agreements” to the CTs so far to be disregarded, and mandatory agreement to the CTs be removed for new sign‐ups. All users may fairly be informed about the licensing options, and where they can indicate their preference. At this point we determine what the level of support for the licence+CT change is, and if and only if we have overall support for the licence+CT change we change the sign up terms to reflect it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:18:41PM +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/11/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: Maybe I missed something, but when were the decisions made? back in 2008 The decisions had to be “the current licence is not suitable, we should find something more suitable” rather than any specific instances of the ODbL and CTs which were developed much later. “We think there is a problem” is a very different decision to the one we are trying to make now, which is whether to adopt the ODbL and CTs as they are. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to deal with CC 2.0 data imports? Proposal Dual licensing of data under odbl-1.0
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:28:05AM -0700, Kai Krueger wrote: There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk ) in the Contributor Terms Revision section: e.g. If you want to import data copyrighted by others or where they are exerting a copyright over data that you have derived by a method such as tracing, the copyright should be compatible with ODbL 1.0. You do not need to guarantee that the copyright will be compatible with future licenses as may be adopted under clause 4 below, but you should be aware that it may then be necessary to delete such Content. If exceptions can be made for imports then why not also do so for “normal” user contributions? I would go so far as asking why the relicensing clause needs to be there in the first place (again) given that exceptions are easily allowed, but since we are talking about compromises, I would gladly accept the option to opt out of the clause. In any case, if I host my data elsewhere, and then “import” it into OpenStreetMap, do I get around this, or am I just being too hopeful? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote: Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed? Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added): I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. *There is a very small amount*, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. There are two major contributions to my feelings on this: The minutes, and Mike Collinson’s very welcome update, where he says: “We are not at this point looking to making any major changes to the way the Contributor Terms, but of course cannot completely rule that out.” Ok, I should have said “little chance” instead of “no chance”, but I hope you will forgive me for feeling weary about it all. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being rolled out. I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned since the early days of the CTs that we ended up with after legal consultation¹. Simon ¹Archive trawling scheduled for Sunday -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. This is a change that cannot be sugar-coated. It is needed in order to ensure that if future changes become necessary they can be made. I'm sorry to be harsh but I think that concentrating on the risks of the new CTs rather than the risks they are meant to address shows a failure of perspective. I don’t think that’s harsh; I think it’s wrong. ;) I see advantages and disadvantages to the CTs, but I believe the disadvantages currently outweigh the advantages. I don't believe that a stoic or pollyannaish acceptance that the licence of OSM may gradually be rendered ineffective by change outside the project is morally superior to enabling the project to rise to future challenges. I’m also not intending that the CTs become something that allows OSM to be gradually rendered ineffective. From my side of this fake wall you have put up, I am indeed intending that they allow OSM to be effective, and continue to allow OSM to be effective, without over extending grants to a third party. If I could make it happen without even having to have a third party involved, I would. Unfortunately, I think it is also beyond possibility. And if people are worried that future changes will not be to their liking they need to get involved in the process more actively. I’m worried that proposed changes in the very near future aren’t to my liking. Am I not actively involved now? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it. Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 That poll is a bit misleading […] Just a point on that poll: I answered ability to accept ODbl imports is more important because: * The assumption was that “the ability to react to change and relicense is more important” requires a very liberal rights grant. I don’t think this is the case. * When discussing a free licence, I would like to see it interoperable with itself, even if OSM only accepted large imports on a case‐by‐case basis. The wording on that poll is also very biased towards the liberal rights grant, and doesn’t paint each option equally (if anything, giving the import option *more* weight). There were only 34 participants. It wasn’t a very good poll. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote: Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […] Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against if they haven't already. In another post[1] I asked if linking the contributor terms to the version of the OSMF could be done. Would it be a suitable safeguard? [1]: “Rights grants in the contributor terms”, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004207.html Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote: Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […] Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against if they haven't already. In another post[1] I asked if linking the contributor terms to the version of the OSMF could be done. Would it be a suitable safeguard? OSMF’s stated aims [1]: “Rights grants in the contributor terms”, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004207.html Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. These contributor terms define a large part of how the future direction of OSM may be determined. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:40:32AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is what we workers should control. No copyright was the true reason for Germanys rapid industrial expansion: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html Maybe. An Ars Technica article[1] points out some obvious flaws. I’d like to see a much more detailed investigation. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/drool-britannia-did-weak-copyright-laws-help-germany-outpace-the-united-kingdom.ars Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Someone in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD and to what he likes. I think this is less realistic when many companies¹ either operate internationally or do business with other companies who operate internationally. If there is no single law, then we can just extract the changes again back in usa and put them back in no? Then it is a two way street. You could, but then you would make the situation confusing in jurisdictions that do respect rights on the data. Copyright and database right does not simply go away with the act of removing the work from the database and putting it back again. ¹I’m assuming business to make writing about it a little more succinct, but the “Someone” in Frederik’s post could really be anyone. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote: As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open: - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual contributors?) - with ODbL, you'd have to ask OSMF, which will be the owner of the data. That’s the whole idea of having a licence: Without a licence, you would have to ask for permission. A licence explicitly gives permission (providing certain conditions are met), so if you you can work within the licence you already have permission. If you want to do anything the licence does not give permission for, then you would have to ask. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:40:23AM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and the managers. Copyright is typically used to restrict distribution. You can only distribute copyright materials with permission from the copyright holders (not counting exceptions to copyright). Copyleft explicity uses copyright to ensure that freedoms to use, copy and distribute a work are passed on to everyone who obtains the work. With copyleft, no further restrictions are added (apart from those that prevent you from restricting the rights of others to copy, use and redistribute the work). For Openstreetmap under the ODbL + DbCL licences: There may be copyright in the actual data, so the DbCL covers that. Where it is deemed that there is no copyright, that licence is effectively meaningless, but since there are no restrictions provided by copyright in the first place it doesn’t matter. (This licence does not attempt to reciprocate the freedoms, so is not copyleft.) There may be copyright in the compilation of the database, and in Europe there is database right, which restricts copying and distribution of databases (and parts of them). The ODbL covers these, and gives permission to use, copy and redistribute the database. Where compilations are not covered by copyright (are there any places?) the parts of the licence covering copyright are probably null, but then there was no copyright anyway so no restrictions on copying and distribution were there (from copyright) in the first place. Where there is no concept of database right, the database right parts of the ODbL are null, but then there were no restrictions from database rights in the first place. That would be copyleft (and “database left”). The ODbL goes further by using contract law to either enforce freedoms to use, copy and distribute in the same way as the “missing” copyright or database right would have allowed, or to add restrictions where there were none anyway, depending on how you see it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Rights grants in the contributor terms
The second clause grants “OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents. It has been debated that this is even necessary already, so I’m not going to start on that… What I would like to ask is can this be tied to the foundation’s stated aim? OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. That is, the grant only lasts so long as OSMF exists and has that aim, and does not have a conflicting aim. Is this useful? Would it help appease those concerned about the broad rights grant? What happens if OSMF is subsumed by another organisation (can it be?), or becomes an organisation, that explicitly has a commercial interest? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:04:01AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: So I don't think setting a minimum attribution level is a good idea, at least from a user freedom point of view. I agree. I mentioned a minimum attribution because others seem to want that. The LWG and/or OSMF only seem to be considering two options other than the explicitly named licences: Attribution, or attribution + share‐alike. I care much less about attribution than I do about the freedoms of users of OSM and derivatives. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:56:15PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license into the CT. I completely agree - if you want to add a clause requiring that future licenses be share alike you'll need to come up with a good definition of what that means, and once you do you're probably made it impossible to relicense. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. The best way to avoid such problems with a future licensing clause is not to have such a clause at all, or stick to explicitly named licences. If share‐alike needs to be defined, then so does “free and open”, because many people have different ideas of what that means, and we haven’t referred to any standard definition. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do, or we can do the license change now and make future license changes simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities. OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database that is covered by the ODbL. There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs: There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself. With the CTs, explicit distribution under the terms of CC by-sa 2.0 is given (for compatibility). This licence also includes a form of upgradability. I think the above upgradability makes the clause in the CTs unnecessary, but I am willing to compromise: I suggest at least some minimum attribution and share alike provisions (although I personally care less about attribution), mirroring those provided by the ODbL: * Attribution of the direct source of the data set. That is, no requirement for attribution chaining, no requirement for attributing every single content contribution. * Share alike on datasets. I agree that extending share alike to things like rendered maps, routes from route planners, etc (produced works in ODbL terminology) are outside the scope for share alike. (Well, I agree with the ODbL, just not the CTs.) Remember that “share alike” generally only means the reciprocality applies when the work is distributed to another entity but you may want to explicitly state this too. If we leave out a relicensing provision entirely, the future OSM community will have to do this all over again. See above, the licences have upgradability. All of it. Not just casting about for the new license and convincing the majority of the community that the new license is right, but also the figuring out what to do about the data touched by those who disagree. Eliminating that last point seems like a worthy improvement to make to the process. I think it is unnecessary to completely eliminate it. Future license changes will still be hard. Flexibility vs clear licence guarantee. I think there should be some compromise at some point, a minimum level to be set that says “beyond this point we will either have to fork¹, or gain more complete cooperation of the community, not just 2/3rds of it. Before you repeat statements about the policies of the GNU project and the Apache Software Foundation, I can’t say I completely agree with their methods either, and thus have not contributed anything more than small patches to them (although I do support the stated aims of the FSF). ¹So if OSMF desperately wanted to remove minimum attribution and share alike without complete cooperation, they might be expected to continue supporting the existing project. We choose LGPL for one project and AfferoGPL for another. Use of the LGPL is discouraged by the FSF[1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html But we don't choose the license before we know the context. If we don’t know the context now, why are we changing the licence? It sounds to me like OSMF and LWG are scared that they haven’t made the right decision. This doesn’t instill a lot of confidence in them. I would like to see some certainty from them. I'm surprised that some in the community believe that they know the context facing the future community better than the future community will know it when they see it. Above, I allow for changing the licence, but ensuring some minimum requirements are met. This is a safety net, not a push back. I'm disappointed that some fingers are pointed at OSMF and LWG as not worthy of trusting with a future license change. See above: I’m not filled with confidence about their decisions. Partly that is disappointing because OSMF and LWG could be any one of you. I’m a member of OSMF, and I have been voicing my opinions, and supporting those of others. [More trust blather] OSMF doesn’t trust the contributors (some rightly so). It goes both ways. But there will be future license changes. Even if they are minor version changes to ODbL v1.1 there will be changes. Upgrade clause is in ODbL 1.0, see above. GPL is on version 3[2]. Licence does not include upgrade clause, but the recommended “copyright statement” suggests including one. People can choose not to. (My standard blurb was version 2 only until I had chance to review the final v3 licence and be happy with it. Now my blurb covers v2 or v3 without any “or later”.) The FSF also gives promises about the terms in future versions of the GPL (although even from v2 to v3 people disputed that the FSF went by their own promises). CC-By is on version 3[3]. CC-By and family include upgradability in the terms. We know that future licenses will change because the world is changing. That is why it is important to
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database that is covered by the ODbL. I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can you give examples for using and distributing individual contents that way? Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any, because the extraction from the database is covered by the rights on the database. It is theoretically possible that your extraction is not substantial: You could have a way of taking the data for an “item” and inserting its data into a blog. It may be contained in your blog’s database, you might add a couple of extra attributes for your blog, but still not be required to distribute any part of your blog’s database, including the modified item. If we assumed there were rights in this extraction (e.g. sweat of the brow, involving some decision about how to map it, or artistic), then the licence on the content comes into play and you should also abide by those terms. If the licence were stronger than DbCL, for example including attribution and/or share alike, you may be required to list the contributors and/or also provide access to a suitable “source” form (e.g. OSM format) of the data. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and above the necessary minimum just because a few of us think so. I’d like to see the length of copyright (and database right) terms reduced too! Can we encourage our respective governments to do that, and at least put all geodata providers on the same playing field (if not also for other works)? Another suggestion then, if you would like not to force our will on “OSM in 10 years”: Instead of leaving it open to any free licence, how about we set set the minimum attribution and share alike provisions and say that it will be subject to review in X years? (Five?) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:20:18AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote: I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can you give examples for using and distributing individual contents that way? Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any, because the extraction from the database is covered by the rights on the database. If the database right holder (OSMF) provides an exported extract of the database, does the use and distribution of that extract by others still come under database rights (and the ODbL)? My thinking is the rights probably still apply, because the rights cover an arrangement of the data, not dependent on the arrangement provided (the internal database format, a direct dump from the database, or in OSM planet format). If that’s the case, I wouldn’t mind seeing a statement to the effect that the database rights either will not be enforced on the CC by-sa dumps or outline some permissions mirroring the CC by-sa copyright licence (because CC by-sa covers only copyright, so database rights remain with… someone). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:29:19AM -0400, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs: There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself. Actually, section 3 will make it harder to upgrade. Under the CT section 3, the database can only be licensed under ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. That’s a fair point. I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be taken transitively as follows: 1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0; 2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later version of the ODbL; 3. By (1) and (2), CTs allow licencing under ODbL 1.0, which includes licences compatible with ODbL 1.0, or a later version of the ODbL? For free software, the GPL doesn’t include an upgrade clause, but the copyright holder may specify one in their copyright statements, which avoids this particular ambiguity. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap. I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too many conflicting goals. If OSM/OSM-F's future really is with PD then fine say so, if it should stay BY-SA then fine say so, but this wishy washiness of trying to appease PD and SA groups isn't going anywhere. During early stages “public domain” was rejected. Skimming through the OSMF board meeting minutes, I can trace this back to January 2008: “3. OSM Data License - Richard provided an update on the current situation. Creative Commons, through their Science Commons initiative have published their protocol on open data at (http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/). The protocol places science data in the public domain and there is no attribution or share alike component. As such it is not therefore thought that OSM contributors would sign up to this approach should it be adopted by OSM. It was agreed that further consideration of the Open Data License would be investigated and Richard tasked with contacting Jordan Hatcher, one of its authors to further discuss.” Source: http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/9/99/20080117_meeting_minutes.pdf I agree with John that we should choose the route and stick to it. I thought the above was to be the route, and one which I agreed with, and the ODbL satisfied that for me. Most of the ambiguity and conflict is in the Contributor Terms, and has been pointed out (many times, to much annoyance) already. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote: If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is not obvious? Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a place of free speech, and topic-focused lists would be sane... Most of the topic‐focused lists are sane. I think the point is, legal discussion is swamping the talk list, and there are already lists specifically for legal discussion and therefore better suited to the topic. I think it’s fine to see the odd legal query on talk, and maybe even a reply or two, but any lengthy discussion involving the finer details should really be referred to legal-talk, just because it’s there, and people who have looked into the finer details, including the LWG, are more likely to be paying attention to legal discussion there. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:36:18PM +0200, Chris Browet wrote: Is this moderating stuff all about the license change? No, that’s just the current example. If so, and I know others agree, it should certainly NOT be moderated on Talk. I disagree. (Although, seeing as there is call for an unmoderated talk, then maybe we should have a moderated talk list _and_ an unmoderated talk list and let the community decide which they want to join.) As I already said, my opinion is that this license stuff has moved from a legal issue to a matter of the future of OSM as we know it... As such, contributors should be able to voice their opinion to the broadest audience. Do you honestly think the Nearmap announcement should have been posted to Legal, with only a fraction of OSM'ers aware? I don't think so. What’s wrong with bringing up the issue on legal-talk, and then posting a pointer to talk saying something like “This issue is being discussed on legal-talk, please follow the discussion there.”? (Trouble is, if everyone does that because they think their issue is super important and everyone else should know about it we still get much of legal-talk on talk.) Somebody suggested digested summaries of discussions on the lists. I think this is a good idea, but it needs people dedicated to it. I think kerneltrap (Linux Kernel Mailing List summaries) is still going, but others such as Kernel Traffic (also LKML) and Debian Weekly News (also from sources other than mailing lists, but did cover prevalent mailing list topics) fizzled out due to lack of people willing to update them. If people truly want to get their issues known to wider audiences, then maybe they should consider supporting such an effort. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:01:02PM +0100, 80n wrote: The license change is the biggest single issue facing OSM at this time. There are frequently complaints that people have not been aware that it was happening. Shunting it off to legal-talk@ could be construed as a way of helping the process to happen by stealth and attrition. I was one who complained (at least about the Contributor Terms, I was quite aware of the ODbL)… Anyhow, let me quote from my own mail: I think it’s fine to see the odd legal query on talk, and maybe even a reply or two, but any lengthy discussion involving the finer details should really be referred to legal-talk, just because it’s there, and people who have looked into the finer details, including the LWG, are more likely to be paying attention to legal discussion there. I don’t think it should be completely removed, just that any discussion more than a reply or two should be referred to the relevant list. As I also said in a later post, what’s wrong with bringing it to the attention of talk list members, and referring discussion to the more relevant list? Anybody can join legal-talk, just like talk, and anybody can view the archives. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and duration of IP protection
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you *will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current than OSM and has less restrictions. Nobody will be interested in x-year-old lapsed OSM data then. So I think this problem is of theoretical nature. I’m glad you say “most”, because we do (or did, at least before OS OpenData sources became available) have a habit of jumping on old Ordnance Survey maps in the UK because the data they represent is still useful. There are also a number of people in the community interested in historical mapping, so who is to say someone will not find x-year-old OSM data useful? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:22:22AM -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're involved in? agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this. osm has open in the name and there is no need to block people. “open” does not mean there aren’t any things to discourage, prevent, and event take action against. Take copyright and database right violations for example: If people are not adhering to the licences and being unreasonable about it, OSM should be able to exercise its own rights. Blocking is very much a last resort, and I imagine that should it happen it will be rarely. To avoid any blocking, encourage people to be friendly on the lists, keep on topic, and if somebody is being rude, abusive, offensive, trolly, or even just showing their irritation, think twice before replying and fueling the fire. Everyone capable of subscribing knows also how to filter certain names. I don’t believe that, and it’s certainly easier in some clients than others. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Post count was one metric in the video SteveC linked yesterday. I don't think using that as the sole measure of a contributor would be reasonable. That wasn’t the sole metric in the video, and neither did I think Steve suggested that it should be _the_ metric either. I can see that people may have taken it that way out of context. I don’t think it’s reasonable to solely use post count either. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:05:25AM +0100, Andy Allan wrote: self control common sense advice from peers guidelines policies 'official' warnings interventions backstop What we've come to recently is the final five steps have been pretty much non-existent, and things have broken down when the advice from peers isn't being taken on board. Hopefully very few people need to even get as far as requiring written guidelines on etiquette, but I guess it turns out we need them. Your code of conduct would play an important part of the guidelines / policies level. Steve has basically made himself backstop. All the things that come in front are more important to work on and get right, but at least now the buck has somewhere to (eventually) stop. I'd hope that nothing ever gets escalated that far though. I couldn’t refrain from just responding to agree, so I’m doing it big style (needs monospace): # # # ## ### # # # # ### Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
You guys obviously didn't read Steve C's post at 10/08/2010 19:13. Please read the full thread before posting. Err, would that be the one where he merely said “interesting statistics” and didn’t state any conclusion? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:29:31PM +0100, Andy Allan wrote: Finally, I think that although the big issues are demonstrating that we have a problem, it's all the little things that are most wearing. So my concrete suggestion, is for someone more eloquent than me to make a handful of guidelines for the mailing lists. Here's a starter: * Assume good faith * No conspiracy theories * No grandstanding * If you've made your point already, you don't need to tell us all again * Nitpicking doesn't help you or anyone else * Learn to live with the reply-to setting. We're not changing it, no matter what your opinion is and so on. I’d like to add “no ad‐hominem attacks” but in a positive way. Maybe “be courteous to others”? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:29:26PM +0100, steve brown wrote: I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page - would people suggest any changes? I would include the wiki in last section, and move the licence text to the bottom. And more importantly, to all people who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and abide to this code? I’ve only just read the thread, but it looks pretty good to me so far. If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page Done so :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that will be super helpful. I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it. The topic of the list should be there already. :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per mailing list too […] I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it. The topic of the list should be there already. :) Maybe a line saying mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list “Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the list”? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:20:02PM -0500, Ian Dees wrote: “Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the list”? Could it specify where to find the guidelines? It could, but shouldn’t become another list of mailing lists, we already have two. Simply saying guidelines set by the list makes it sound like it's a decision that was made by a vote of people on a mailing list. How about “guidelines on the list-info page for the mailing list”? I don’t know if Mailman’s list of mailing lists[1] can contain customised text, but it could link to the code of conduct. The list on the wiki[2] can certainly link to it. [1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo [2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (Not) Removing data
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:29:36PM +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views? Precedents? Well, you can steal my food, and if you’re careful I might not notice the odd loaf of bread go missing. I might notice, and attribute it to something else (flat mate was hungry), or I might know it was you and look the other way (maybe until it happens again). Does that mean it is right (legal or moral) to steal my food? Copyright is automatic, and exclusive to the owner. The owner may give certain permissions to use and reproduce the work, but outside of those they still have the exclusive rights. If I haven’t been given permission to re‐license a work then I might be able to get away with it if the owner doesn’t notice but I have no legal right to do it. Note: I’ve compared copyright infringement to theft, and I apologise. When you copy, you don’t take anything tangible away from the owner¹; when you steal, you deprive the owner of something they once had. ¹You may reduce their potential return from the work, and therefore their incentive to produce works, which is a reason for copyright to exist. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Button order (was: Frederik declares war on data imports...)
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 02:24:03PM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: I'm a little surprised that there has been no flame^Wdiscussion about the order of the buttons yet, as the UI designers always observe that the defaults is always what 90% of users will choose. You started it… :P I thought there was no default button for CT page, although I think the buttons do always appear in the same order. For those not evaluating the options given to them, and just picking one at “random”… Natural (at least for many of us) left-right, top-bottom reading order suggests Decline would be first to be seen. On the other hand, somebody taking the time to at least read the choices would end up with their eyes focused on the Agree button, and might choose that if they were not to evaluate the options properly. Fitts’s law applied to two dimensions, would suggest that the nearest and biggest button (Decline) be the quickest to get to. From some of Ubuntu’s, and presumably other systems, desktop UI considerations, edges and corners have higher weightings (so panels, docks, etc always appear at the edge of the screen). This might suggest the Agree button gets a better chance, although I’m not sure the same rules apply, because it’s resistance to the cursor moving past the edge of the screen that makes it quick to get there. Anyhow, if it really bothers anyone I would make the buttons the same size, randomise the order in which they appear, and possibly also horizontally centre them. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:39:43AM -0400, Anthony wrote: If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the license change make their own coastline, on the dev server. I want to be seeing coastlines as good as these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marrowp/4446458388/in/pool-curiositycollective :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only, have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you suggest that they should not have a choice? Not arguing against people having a choice, but I do think that, whether or not the license change happens, people should be able to get all of the old data, including history, under the terms of the existing CC-by-sa license. If the OSMF Board were to decide, okay, that's it. All the data is relicensed without asking contributors, is that in line with their mandate to assist OpenStreetMap but not control it? They can’t do this: It’s legally dubious (although can possibly be worked around), and it’s morally wrong (you can’t just relicense somebody else’s (yours) data without getting permission). That’s why the intention is to ask everyone to agree to the new license and contributor terms. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France, where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your rights. For what it’s worth, you can’t actually remove moral rights in the UK either, even though the license requires that you waive them. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] �Correcting� existi ng data with OS Opendata
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:11:46AM +, Ed Avis wrote: However I'd like to point out that 'ground survey' versus 'OS' is a false dichotomy. Firstly the existing OSM topology is not always from ground surveys. More often than not it will be a trace from Yahoo aerial imagery. Secondly, how do you know that the Ordnance Survey does not also use ground surveys? It’s not just about “ground survey” versus “OS”, I should have made the subject more general. It’s about assuming your collected data is better than others. I emphasise ground surveys, not because another data provider might not do them, but because the user who gathered the data has been there and seen what’s really there. (Of course, we don’t really have a way to properly verify this.) But also, let's get priorities straight. Surely the purpose of OSM is to create a freely usable, complete and high-quality map. Providing a fun hobby for people who like to walk around with GPS units is only a side-effect. Anything which helps us complete or improve the map is to be welcomed. I didn’t say any different, but I did say that one of OSM’s things is to map what’s actually on the ground. (Personally, I have found the OS data provides plenty of motivation to resurvey areas which I had previously considered complete.) This is what I hope people use the OS data for: Filling in the gaps, and using it to help verify existing data. Not simply replacing data, especially if it loses some of it. Of course, it’s not lost, we can always revert data, or re‐add missing attributes, but I would like to avoid having to do that in the first place. My full disclosure is that I haven’t done even minor fixups, let alone surveying, for quite some time. I just saw it mentioned in the IRC channel, didn’t like the idea that people were replacing detailed surveying with OS Opendata and removing attributes, and brought it to the list. I would be just a little bit disgruntled if someone were replacing my detailed data with poorer quality data, whatever the source. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:55:17AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members - among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process, including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89% majority in December last year. You weren't vocal on the contributor terms in the months before so I am somewhat surprised that you're starting to voice your disagreement half a year after the vote. Of course anyone can have second thoughts - but remember that any change to the contributor terms would require repeating that OSMF member vote. I approved the process for the license change and somehow managed to miss the contributor terms. I wasn’t aware of them when I voted, my mistake, although may be I could have been made more aware—someone else appeared to think the CTs “snuck” in quietly too. I took a look in the December archives for osmf-talk: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000670.html On legal-talk some days before, I said I had already responded to the polls: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-December/003029.html I’m quite surprised how much I have *not* changed my opinions. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they didn't sign for it. I would be amazed that such a loophole exists in the first place. To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are one-sided contracts. I don’t believe they are a good example… Some countries do not accept that they have any validity, others do. …for this very reason. Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid if signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement. This is my (basic) understanding of a contract: It involves two (at least) parties agreeing, not just passively. So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no contract when i pick it up and use it, but any copyright it has is preserved. Makes sense. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Why do we need contract law at all? I know some reason why people think we need it: Because database rights are drastically different to non‐existent across different jurisdictions, so we feel the need to “balance” it out by enforcing the same for everyone using contract law. I don’t agree with it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote: wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, That is just a part of the problem: The only question that is being asked is if we agree to the ODbL. We also need to take into account at least: * Do you agree to license your data under the DbCL? * Do you agree to the contributor terms? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:55:42PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy about clarification of point 3 in CT. +1 Or remove the relicensing ability totally. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote: It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we voted the right way. I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it did not seem like an issue. I can't even remember if I took much notice of the contributor terms I certainly voted based on the license only and not on the contributor terms, with which I later recalled disagreeing too on one of these mailing ilsts. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's include their data without them signing the CT. This would mean that if at any later time the license is changed, NearMap would have to be asked specifically if they like that license. I assume that this is something we will have to do for some other sources as well. No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that. Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation who feels they can’t fit with our terms. However, I think the concerns are entirely reasonable, and if we say we are going to license our data under the ODbL + DbCL we should stick to it. Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike licenses? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:26:57AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike licenses? I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an effort to find out what spirit most of the contributors would prefer; the fact alone that they are willing to participate in a SA project does not say anything. As discussed previously by others, any poll without real consequences invariably affects how one answers, and any determination of spirit is subjective at best. We need to proceed with the license change, but in doing so really need to allow more options than just a yay or nay to the ODbL. Any decision needs to take into account: * Direct contributor acceptance of the licenses (ODbL and DbCL) and contributor terms for existing data. * Whether import and derivative contribution sources accept the licenses and contributor terms. * Acceptance of licenses and contributor terms for future contributions. The current proposal doesn’t offer all combinations of those choices. Having all combinations would probaly also be quite overwhelming, so I see the advantage of a simple yes/no choice. However, this is currently very biased towards “the LWG/OSMF knows what’s good for you, do what they tell you”. It should instead be: “If you disagree with any part, say ‘no’”. If an absolute majority agrees, fine, let’s go ahead. Otherwise, we need to re‐evaluate some things, get more detail on what’s wrong so far. Can I help the LWG? For my part, I don’t fully agree with the contributor terms, and I suggest we start there because they are also what I’ve seen other people voice their dissent about. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] “Correcting” existing data wi th OS Opendata
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:18:45PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: In principle I understand what your saying agree to some extent; except that I think it's incorrect to assume that on ground surveying is necessarily more accurate. GPS tracks are prone to being sent off course by the surroundings such as heavy tree coverage steep topography. In these cases the maps are probably more accurate. OSM primarily maps what is on the ground, not what other geodata says is there. Other data has been shown to be quite inaccurate compared to OSM, including mastermap data. Using our own collective knowledge just produces better results anyway. I’m well up for using OS OpenData to enhance our data, but the cases I’ve seen involve arbitrary moving of ways to directly match OS data, and loss of metadata. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote: For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I propose the following. Each data object (either a node, way or relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will agree to relicense our data as ODbL, if all other authors agree to release their data as PD. The current contributor terms[1] state that “data objects” or the contents of the database will have the Database Content License (DbCL)[2] applied to them. I’m not pro‐PD while overly long copyright (and database right) periods exist (I’d rather see short copyright terms for all, so everything becomes PD after a reasonable amount of time), but the DbCL appears PD‐friendly in the face of copy/database rights in a similar vein to the WTFPL (Do What The Fuck you want to Public License). Individual PD‐like agreement would not have an effect on extraction from the database as a whole, which is what ODbL applies to. [1]: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2]: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1-0/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:19:53PM +1000, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well. I just received a reply, Nearmap will only allow derived data to be licensed under a share alike license, which means any data derived from their imagery, while compatible with ODBL, isn't compatible with the new CTs. Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing) clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place. If it is changed to allow relicensing to another share alike license (probably quite difficult to describe legally without, uh, writing a license) with the 2/3 majority would that be acceptable? If the alternative licenses are completely removed from the contributor terms would that fix it? Is there an issue with using the DbCL for the contents of the database? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:54:36PM +1000, John Smith wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have done both their own surveys, the data from which they might be happy to relicense, and derivatives of other data (Nearmap, Yahoo!, etc), which they may not be able to relicense. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:56:57PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the hypothetical referendum(?) be open to any person who responded to the license upgrade question? Or to any person with an OSM account? The more we have, the more informed we can be. We could poll _all_ users, and still summarise answers according to whether they have ever contributed, and whether they are “active”. The ultimate agreement (or not) should be from anyone who has contributed anyway, and we don’t want to dissuade new users so we’d like to know how they feel too. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] “Correcting” existing data wi th OS Opendata
I just added a comment to the talk page about OS Opendata[1]: It seems that some people have been using OS Opendata to “correct” existing data, moving ways to match OS Opendata, and in some cases removing attributes (such as surface=paved). Please, please, please, pretty please don’t just assume your data is better than the existing data, especially if yours is derived from another source and the existing data is from a ground survey. [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Modifying_Existing_Data Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote: just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote: The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project is to fork it. How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can fork it? That works too. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote: I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more than obvious I'm bucking the trend... Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so vocal… ;) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:14:46PM +1000, John Smith wrote: And that's where the fear comes in, just because you may have good intentions doesn't mean that it won't harm my goals. Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please everyone. If you care that much, why not campaign with reasons against the license change, and encourage lots of OSMers to disagree with it. If you’re lucky you might get enough support to halt the process. With all of your talk about majorities, surely this would be the way to change things, and not just a thread of whining and fear about the loss of imported data on the list. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about rights to data are vastly different that contract law is needed to balance it out—it’s apparently unfair otherwise. I don’t really believe that. Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also: * Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks) I didn’t realise it was that short a time period. :/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:08:07AM +1000, John Smith wrote: At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't and ODBL still goes ahead then I'll be forced to fork. I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put to contributors. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Notice the absence of any or later clause here. This means that if ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we would have to go through the whole 2/3 of active members have to accept poll to upgrade. I don’t see the issue with this. A new ODbL could quite drastically change the way it works. Don’t be fooled by a point release—people can version things in any way they please. I’m a little biased: I think that the contributor terms for possible future license changes are unnecessary, and that OSM should seek permission from all rights holders for any license change. Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in my opinion. It comes back to the fear of losing stuff that if the rights holders don’t really agree OSM has no rights to anyway. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote: - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let develop such a tool. I’m still struggling with how to get such statistics without first getting an opinion—the catch‐22 I referred to earlier but John seemed to brush off without actually thinking about it. I’m in favour of a non‐binding straw poll to all OSM accounts before a “final” agree/disagree thing. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 01:36:09AM +0100, I wrote: Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in my opinion. The project needs to understand the consequences of a license change, this one or any future one, and accept that it may well not be able to apply a different license to some existing data. It should get over the fear of “losing” data. If a user doesn’t agree to a new license, then tough, their data can’t be distributed per that license. None of this “ooh we’re scared so we’ll make people agree to allow relicensing in the contributor terms”. For a project about open data, we seem to be getting awfully hung up on keeping a tight hold on the data rather than actually making it open. Note: I’m a copyleft fan: I think the the data being free (freedom, not necessarily “free of charge”) and remains free is much more important than any attribution. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Chapter
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:46:09PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: I do not know why, but this email (12 days old) has only just popped up in my Inbox. Perhaps it was stuck in the ether and that is why there are only a few responses to the Doodle. I cleared some mail that was pending administrator check. Mostly they are spam but occasionally there is an OSM related one from someone who is not subscribed to the list, I usually let those though, even if they are a little old. Same for talk-gb-thenorth. I usually let seemingly legitimate OSM mail from non‐subscribers through, but it will be delayed until an admin can attend to it. For posting anything, especially time dependent mails, across different lists I recommend subscribing to the lists to reduce delays. If you want to post, but not receive email from a list you can always set the appropriate option using the web interface (Mail delivery: disabled). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Separation of sources
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:35:42AM +0100, Martin - CycleStreets wrote: I'm not sure I quite understand the objection to tracing over other data that OSM can legally and ethically use (though can appreciate David Earl's point of view). There is no objection to tracing over other data, but an objection at doing it at the expense of ground surveyed data. The fact is that this OS data is our data which mostly we as taxpayers have paid for already. Why shouldn't we make use of it and incorporate it as the basis of a road network that can then be incrementally improved, adjusted and built upon, more quickly (unless it is not 'good enough' from an accuracy perspective)? Of course we should use the data available to us. I don’t think it is necessary to bung it all directly into the same project. If all of the different data sources are readily available online, a “combined” project could use them, and improve on them. Another project might prefer to combine them differently. I agree in an ideal world, ground-surveys done from first principles will be preferable. But the fact is that there remain areas of the country that routing. Given a selection of sources, it is up to the data users to combine them in a way that works for them. If a project needs the basic road network, there’s nothing stopping it using GPS + OS + traced aerial imagery + whatever, and combining them in a way it sees fit (well, short of the effort in doing this that I may underestimate). volunteer-encouragement perspective. So wouldn't the pragmatic way forward be to patch in / trace over data in incomplete areas, so that it forms the basic network? Again, I don’t see how separating out the sources stops this from working in a combined project. Maybe OSM now is the “combined” project, I’d just like to see something where ground surveyed data is the ultimate, and it’s not clear to me that it is the ultimate now. If people want other sources so much, won’t they encourage the effort to combine the independent sources? I think that surely underestimates the effort required. Processing one massive dataset is bad enough, never mind having to do this for several sources and find ways to deal with merging/clashing. Oh, I expect it would be extra effort. You snipped the bit where I said that. I asked “is it really that bad?” I’m very much not a data user at the moment, so I have very little experience, so do tell me more. :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Separation of sources
With all of the current excitement over OS OpenData, I have been thinking about how tracing, imports, etc, affect what data is actually surveyed. In my mind, I’m preferring having a project where data is obtained purely from ground survey, other projects dealing with other sources of data, and maybe another project to combine them. I’m a fan of ground surveys, and think they mostly tend to produce better results when available, so I may be a little bit biased. Having a project dedicated to ground survey means less chance of peoples’ hard work being trodden over by people tracing maps from the 60’s, or trying to make out features from poor resolution aerial imagery. Combining the data, however, will have more of an overhead than if all data was contributed to one project in the first place. This might deter people from the idea, but is it really that bad? Ground surveyed data tends to be more accurate. If people want other sources so much, won’t they encourage the effort to combine the independent sources? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Post code areas
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 03:37:39AM +1000, John Smith wrote: From what I understand, in the UK postcodes refer to a street, at least in populated areas... More usually one side of a street. They can refer to a small residential area, one or both sides of a street, or a single large building. http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content1?catId=400044mediaId=9200078 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcodes_in_the_United_Kingdom Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Number of active contributors
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote: Interesting. That is a lower figure than I personally was envisioning when we made the above definition, and therefore potentially disenfranchising of genuine OSM community. Perhaps we should review it, 3 calendar months in the last 12 perhaps?? Comments welcome. I have previously expressed my opinion that the definition was too narrow, and seeing the statistics has strengthened that. I preferred scrapping the “activeness” check entirely (and still do), but later suggested 18 months. I don’t think the requirement should necessarilly be that those contributions be evenly spread out. E.g. months 1-3 of 18 should be acceptable. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote: any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active contributors. I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I actually think it should be scrapped completely, because it doesn’t matter whether somebody isn’t active any more. If I let OSM have my data to be used under a particular licence (or variant of), then that’s what I do. If I believe in share-alike type stuff (which I do), I do not generally wish to exempt an organisation from it (I may exempt someone, but there have to be special circumstances that I feel warrant this). I will not contribute further to OSM (directly) under such broad terms, because I do not believe it is right. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's why, while desirable, it is not practical to give them a say. Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and if I don't react then that counts as an abstain vote. At the very least, I expect the period to be much longer than 6 months. My arbitrary acceptable number data just suggested 18 months. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ---End Message--- signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 06:49:37AM -0500, Rob Myers wrote: Unless that is the only way of ensuring that everyone continues to have the advantage of effectively all rights to the data and that organisation is OSM. ;-) Well, yes, so why isn’t OSM just going PD (or near equivalent)? :) (Yes, I know you’d like that, Frederik.) If share-alike is truly wanted (and I know it isn’t by some), then it should truly be adopted. If the licence isn’t sufficient to provide all of the necessary rights for share-alike then how is it a share-alike licence? (To me the ODbL itself seems reasonable.) OSMF’s concern appears to be that they may need to go through yet another round of changing the licence. To mitigate that, they choose to go for contributor terms that give pretty much unlimited rights. I understand the need to progress with licensing that better fits OSM, and that the ODbL in its current form may turn out not to “fit” OSM. I don’t understand the need to give OSMF anything more than the rights given under the ODbL which includes an upgrade clause (and maybe CC-by-sa for compatibility). I’m not trying to put this on the some level as anti-terror laws, or other intrusive laws, so please try to think in perspective when I say: It rings of the inflated laws that are provided, as “national security” to combat “terrorism”. They are over-encompassing, and that’s saying it nicely. So, to “protect” OSM itself, we make people give all* rights to OSMF, instead of the minimal rights necessary. *I know there’s a clause that restricts it, but it is only restricted by vote (and the undefined and therefore ambiguous term of “a free and open license”), and is subject to abuse however unlikely the chances may be. This option should not exist. Protecting the original OSM is an admirable cause, but is something that I think does not need to be included in the contributor terms or the licence. If the licence was truly share-alike, there would be no need to specify the extra conditions on contribution*, and if anybody wanted to incorporate it back into the original OSM source, they could *I’m fully aware the GNU project requires copyright assignment. I’m an associate member of the FSF, but that doesn’t mean I agree with copyright assignment (or effectively giving all rights to another). People could contribute to OSM, OSM could provide the aggregated data, others could use it and modify it. It could go back into OSM, if allowed. I think the ODbL is reasonable with regards to the share-alike on the database, though I haven’t been through it with a fine-toothed comb, and nor do I have the legal understanding to be able to comment authoritatively. The contributor terms, however, are far too broad, and give OSMF rights above the licence itself. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
