[OSM-legal-talk] Disclaimers of title in open licenses/OGL [was Re: Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)]

2016-09-09 Thread Luis Villa 
[Forking thread title so as to minimize noise for anyone who actually cares
about the Peel license ;)]

tl;dr: The problem in Robert's example is the UK government, not the
license. If real money were at stake for some reason, every well-advised
open licensor (including OSM under ODbL) would take exactly the same
position. Hopefully most will be nicer about fixing the problem than this
agency was, but the fix will be because of issues of reputation, or some
other legal obligation, not their license.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:45 AM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 September 2016 at 18:19, Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the
> > "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to
> license"
> > language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is
> implicit in
> > all licenses - if there is third party material in a work that the open
> > licensor isn't authorized to license, then that material isn't licensed
> to
> > you, regardless of what the license says.
>
> Yes, but without that clause, the licensor is implicitly asserting
> that they do have the necessary rights to offer the licence, and if
> there did turn out to be problems later, the licensee would probably
> have some come-back on them.
>

Respectfully, I disagree. It is unlikely that a licensee using an open
license would have redress in this situation.

Most open licenses have a disclaimer that attempts to absolve the licensor
of liability in situations like this. In, for example, ODBL 1.0:

"Licensor specifically disclaims any and all implied warranties or
conditions of title [or] non-infringement..."

"Licensor is not liable for, and expressly excludes, all liability
for loss or damage however and whenever caused to anyone by any use
under this License..."

The effectiveness of such disclaimers may vary by jurisdiction—for example,
one commentator has suggested they may not be viable in the UK
<https://ipdraughts.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/dont-come-to-me-if-the-product-i-sell-you-infringes-ip/>.
But if they're a problem in OGL 1.0, they're also a problem in ODBL 1.0 and
just about every other open license.

[If what they actually claimed was that the material was "carved out"
(i.e., not licensed at all), so there was no liability even though UK law
says the disclaimer is ineffective... well, I'll just say I'm comfortable I
could find a UK lawyer to take that argument :)]

there doesn't seem to be any obligation on the
> licensor to point out that some parts of the dataset cannot actually be
> re-used under the stated licence.
>

For better or for worse, there is no obligation of that sort in any open
source license that I'm aware of, with the sole exception of a
patent-related obligation in MPL 1.0 Sec. 3.4(a). We took that out in MPL
2.0 ;)

Thoughtful open licensors address this problem by *voluntarily *creating
processes to vet IP and giving notice where there are issues. For example,
Eclipse and Apache have lots of IP vetting of new projects to avoid this
sort of problem (and I know of at least one case where it saved downstream
licensees where the license would not have done so). My understanding is
that Wikidata can't be used as an OSM source for similar reasons. And given
Robert's example, maybe the UK government should be pressed to do the same.
:)

If this sort of provenance issue is a real concern, OSM should push data
sources to document and review their processes, and perhaps consider
improving provenance data in the database directly (so that the problems
are easier to fix once identified). Just don't look to licenses as a
solution (or in this case, see OGL as the problem).

Hope that helps clarify-
Luis (IAAL, BIANYL)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Luis Villa 
Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the
"third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license"
language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit
in all licenses - if there is third party material in a work that the open
licensor isn't authorized to license, then that material isn't licensed to
you, regardless of what the license says.

Luis

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:56 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> The additional terms are "a bit of" a problem, however might be
> surmountable if they are willing to give us a statement specifically for
> the inclusion in OSM (along the lines of that they agree that the inclusion
> of the data in OpenStreetMap and distribution on terms of an open and free
> licence fulfils the conditions).
>
> All variants of the OGL have a further issue in that you actually have to
> verify that the Licensor has the necessary rights to licence -all- the
> material in their dataset to you on these terms. This might seem like a
> theoretical hurdle invented by me, alas it is not, as some of our UK
> colleagues can testify.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 08.09.2016 um 21:05 schrieb Stewart Russell:
>
> Hi - this came up on talk-ca, and I want to make sure I'm not being too
> restrictive.
>
> Licence is a near clone of the UK OGL 1.0. Full text is here:
> http://opendata.peelregion.ca/terms-of-use.aspx
> Like many Canadian municipalities, they've added their own secret sauce,
> unfortunately. In the "You must" section, they added:
>
> [You must] ensure that Your Use of the Information does not breach or
> infringe upon any applicable laws
>
> The OGL has automatic termination on breach, and most versions don't
> include this clause.
>
> Would this term potentially add complications for anyone downstream using
> the data - say to plan a public protest that authorities deem illegal?
>
> The Regional Municipality of Peel's open data person is an active OSM
> participant, and they say that it might take time for permission to use the
> data under a more OSM-friendly library.
>
> Your advice greatly appreciated.
>
> Best Wishes,
>  Stewart
>
> --
> http://scruss.com/blog/ - 73 de VA3PID
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing 
> listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any thoughts on the Friday WAPO article referencing OSM RE: India Mapping?

2016-05-10 Thread Luis Villa 
It's not just the disputed border; the bill as proposed would make it
illegal to possess "geospatial data", i.e., copies of OSM, without a
license:

http://geoawesomeness.com/problems-with-the-geospatial-information-regulation-bill/

Luis


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:35 PM Mr. Stace D Maples 
wrote:

> Anyone else noticed this? Pretty hefty fine, and the article specifically
> references the OSM depiction of disputed boundaries as problematic.
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06/cartographers-beware-india-warns-of-15-million-fine-for-maps-it-doesnt-like/
>
> In F,L,
> Stace Maples
> Geospatial Manager
> Stanford Geospatial Center
> @mapninja
> G+, Skype, Hangout: stacey.maples
> 214.641.0920
> Find GeoData: https://earthworks.stanford.edu
> Get GeoHelp: https://gis.stanford.edu/
> stanfordgis Listserv:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/stanfordgis
>
> "I have a map of the United States... actual size.
> It says, "Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile."
> I spent last summer folding it."
> -Steven Wright-
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

2015-09-22 Thread Luis Villa 
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:58 PM Tom Lee  wrote:

> Martin,
>
>
> Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal
> point of view, how it should be interpreted?
>
>
> Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important
> use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important
> user of ODbL [...]
>

Also, unlike copyright, the ODbL is based on legal terms and concepts that
are largely untested and undefined. As I've explained on this list
before[1], some very basic terms like "substantial" are not well-defined in
the statute or caselaw. In some cases, that vagueness may be helpful for
OSM; in other cases, not so much.

Luis

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-April/007809.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Addresses from Land Registry Price Paid Data

2014-12-01 Thread Luis Villa 
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:

 This is, IMHO, not a problem specific to the OGL.

 In general I have yet to see any licence or agreement to include data in
 OSM, that actually states that the licensor has all the necessary rights
 to licence the data on the terms presented and holds the licensee (us)
 harmless for any damages arising out of not having those rights.


That's pretty standard in open licenses of all flavors— e.g., in GPL a
third party might have patents; in CC someone might have personality
rights. (And realistically it is common in traditional/proprietary licenses
as well, but in those cases, you may be able to negotiate better terms
depending on the situation.) OSMF could, of course, negotiate further
assurances outside of OGL with specific data providers if there was a
particular concern.

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

2014-11-18 Thread Luis Villa 
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

 I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members
 who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that
 fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties.


Hi, Mike, others-
Is there a formal description somewhere of the roles/responsibilities of
the WG? That would help me evaluate to what extent (if at all) I can
participate in WG activities.

Thanks-
Luis


-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

2014-11-18 Thread Luis Villa 
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

  On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:


 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
 wrote:

 I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members
 who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that
 fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties.


 Hi, Mike, others-
 Is there a formal description somewhere of the roles/responsibilities of
 the WG? That would help me evaluate to what extent (if at all) I can
 participate in WG activities.

 The scope of the LWG is listed at
 http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group


Thanks, Paul. I hope you and the rest of the group don't mind me asking
some more questions.



 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWn372ow_1tnTdQja76mthS8V-ZQ5PCL_RWLR1CBzkw/pub
 has some of the work we'd like to take on in the near future.


Interesting. How often does the group meet, in practice? Is there also a
fair bit of email between meetings, or...?

It mentions referrals to outside counsel - is that still WSGR or is it
someone else?

I note quite a few non-licensing topics—DMCA, Facebook, etc. Are those
common or is this unusually timed?


 We haven't worked out a precise framework for the scope of individual
 associate members - it's not expected that all associate members would
 participate in all parts of the LWG's work.

 If associate members not having a vote would allow people to help who
 would otherwise be in a conflict of interest, that could be done too.


How often are votes actually held? Or is it mostly consensus-based anyway?

Does the WG have formal legal obligations as a committee of the board (or
otherwise) or is it informal/advisory? (To explain that another way: in
some organizations, groups like the LWG are board committees, and so
certain formal requirements apply to their members — duties of good faith,
attendance, voting rules, etc. In some orgs, they are essentially purely
advisory so have no formal legal obligations.)

Thanks-
Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using description from wikipedia text (Tom Gregorovic)

2014-10-19 Thread Luis Villa 
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:

 Now the WMF has consistently supported that facts are not copyrightable,


Correct.


 so there should not be any danger there


Note that WMF is not the copyright holder in Wikipedia's content, so you of
course have to take WMF's position with a grain of salt when using
Wikipedia's content. But I'd be surprised if this was a problem, especially
in a situation like this one where it is particularly clear that what is
being used is the underlying fact rather than a copy of a specific
expression of the fact.

Luis
-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)

2014-05-12 Thread Luis Villa 
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:

 Luis

 The LWG has spent considerable time discussing the geocoding issue, so
 it is not as if we've ignored the subject.


Didn't mean to imply that work hasn't been done! I've read all the public
threads I can find :)  But the wiki doesn't reflect that, and the wiki is
where most outsiders are going to go to try to figure out the question,
since it is most googleable, linked to from many places, etc.

So, yes, I think it might be fair to say that the LWG has punted on the
 geocoding issue at least for now, to spend its time on issues which are
 more likely to be resolved.


I think it would be helpful if the wiki at least reflected that. If there
were links from there to the relevant mailing list threads, it would (1)
warn people that this is a tough issue and (2) they might find some useful
analysis/background in them.

Normally I'd try to organize some of that myself, but since I'm a lawyer
for an organization that will likely consider some sort of geocoding at
some point in the future I'm extremely reluctant to put words in anyone's
mouth or in anyone's wiki.

Luis




 Am 08.05.2014 01:27, schrieb Luis Villa:
 
  On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
  mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 
 
  We also have a number of issues that are very immature in terms of
  constructing a useful guideline.  What we have been lacking, with
  some notable exceptions, is data users prepared to give a real use
  case that they can share in a reasonable level of detail.  Being
  able to deal with concrete rather than myriad hypothetical cases
  makes progress much faster. If you are user or potential user of OSM
  data, do share real-world issues here. Or, contact us at
  le...@osmfoundation.org mailto:le...@osmfoundation.org. We can
  handle commercial-in-confidence provided that the end result is
  shareable publicly and applies to all equally within the parameters
  of our license.
 
 
  I would suggest that writing down and working through even basic,
  non-detailed use cases would likely help clarify a lot of the
  Guidelines. Even if all they do is result in saying it depends,
  explaining what it depends on can be helpful to everyone.
 
  For example, to kickstart the geocoding Guideline, it would probably be
  great to start with some of the basic examples/use cases from the
  mailing list discussion last year:
 
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007553.html
  and
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007554.html
 
  Which isn't to say that people shouldn't describe detailed use cases :)
  Just that a lot of progress could be made by walking through more basic
  ones as well.
 
  Luis
 
  --
  Luis Villa
  Deputy General Counsel
  Wikimedia Foundation
  415.839.6885 ext. 6810
 
  NOTICE: /This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
  have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
  mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
  reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
  community members, volunteers, or staff members in their
  personal**capacity./
 
 
  ___
  legal-talk mailing list
  legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
 


 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

2014-05-07 Thread Luis Villa 
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:

 I hope we (as in the LWG) are not creating the impression that we are
 trying to assemble as many loop holes as possible, it is more
 identifying some of the edge cases and trying to document the community
 consensus on the interpretation. In the case at hand we are simply
 saying: here is a potential use case that is in a grey area, what do you
 think?


It is difficult to provide clarity and consistency/reliability without also
introducing loopholes. Richard Fontana (co-author of GPL v3) has written
about this issue in the software copyleft context here:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-April/000639.html

Richard's email may be useful reading for folks thinking about how OSM
should approach this very difficult problem. Short version: balancing
between clarity and loopholes is a well-known problem for lawyers
(sometimes called the rules/standards problem), and there is no good answer
when trying to write general-purpose legal documents, like laws,
constitutions, or copyleft licenses :) I would suggest that OSM is better
off creating some clarity (and thereby encouraging more contributions) and
risking some loopholes, since the people interested in the loopholes are
likely to not contribute back anyway. But that is a judgment call and there
is no 100% right answer.

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)

2014-05-07 Thread Luis Villa 
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:


 We also have a number of issues that are very immature in terms of
 constructing a useful guideline.  What we have been lacking, with some
 notable exceptions, is data users prepared to give a real use case that
 they can share in a reasonable level of detail.  Being able to deal with
 concrete rather than myriad hypothetical cases makes progress much faster.
 If you are user or potential user of OSM data, do share real-world issues
 here. Or, contact us at le...@osmfoundation.org. We can handle
 commercial-in-confidence provided that the end result is shareable publicly
 and applies to all equally within the parameters of our license.


I would suggest that writing down and working through even basic,
non-detailed use cases would likely help clarify a lot of the Guidelines.
Even if all they do is result in saying it depends, explaining what it
depends on can be helpful to everyone.

For example, to kickstart the geocoding Guideline, it would probably be
great to start with some of the basic examples/use cases from the mailing
list discussion last year:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007553.htmland
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007554.html

Which isn't to say that people shouldn't describe detailed use cases :)
Just that a lot of progress could be made by walking through more basic
ones as well.

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

2014-04-29 Thread Luis Villa 
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:


 There are some moderate complicated edge cases caused by  and there are
 some things that will not be possible with share alike and are not intended
 to be possible in the first place.


The problem is the gap between what is not possible and what is not
intended to be possible. There are lots of use cases where those two
overlap pretty well, but plenty where they probably don't. This can cut
both ways; either unintentionally allowing things that were intended to be
prohibited, or unintentionally prohibiting things that were intended to be
allowed.

This happens in every generic/general-purpose legal document, but ODBL
probably has it worse than most because many copyleft concepts simply don't
map very well into the data space. I've been working on a blog post on this
problem for a while; hopefully I'll get it out soon but I can't make any
promises :(


 Naturally anybody is completely within its rights to lobby for changes
 that would better fit their business model, but that does not imply that
 everything they claim during lobbying is an accurate description of our
 current licence.


Without commenting on/endorsing Alex's position, suffice to say that the
vast majority of lawyers I've talked with about the license, including many
with long experience in open software licenses, find the license difficult
to interpret. This is not entirely ODBL's fault - for example, underlying
concepts, like substantial, are essentially undefined in the caselaw,
making it difficult to interpret what those clauses mean. (Compare with
some equivalent clauses about derivative works in copyright licenses,
which can rely on 100 years of caselaw as background.) But it is a reality
that slows, or in some cases stops, adoption of/contribution to OSM.


 Further I note there was 0 (zero) response to the proposed updated
 community guidelines that go a long way in clarifying a number of the grey
 areas, indicating that the whole upset is not about fixing real issues.


I am responding in small parts in the wiki[1], and in larger part in an
upcoming email. I would not take lack of response on a single mailing list
as a useful indicator of whether or not there are real issues or concerns,
especially since most lawyers who would be aware of problems would be
extremely reluctant to comment publicly on something that might impact
their clients.

Hope that helps explain the context/situation a bit-
Luis

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LuisVilla_%28WMF%29


 Simon

 Am 28.04.2014 21:26, schrieb Jake Wasserman:

 or giving data back when you fix things.

 This is a gross oversimplification of share-alike. And the imperfections
 in the license extend beyond geocoding. I don't want to rehash the
 arguments, as Alex Barth did http://stateofthemap.us/session/more-open/very 
 eloquently at State of the Map US. Let's just not pretend the
 requirements are simple, tiny, or little, but are instead complex and
 sweeping.

  In any case, I agree with the larger point that OSM data users must
 comply with the rules as they exist and we should publicly call out their
 violations.

  -Jake



 ___
 legal-talk mailing 
 listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

2014-04-29 Thread Luis Villa 
,
but that was not the primary point being argued in that case so I wouldn't
rely on the number being that low.)

For repeated and systematic, the BHB court said:

The provision ... prohibits acts of extraction ... which, because of their
repeated and systematic character, would lead to the reconstitution of the
database as a whole or, at the very least, of a substantial part of it ...
(Para 87)

So repeated/systematic extraction that does not allow someone to
reconstitute a substantial part of the database would not be substantial.
The court justified this by saying that the purpose of this part of the
directive was to prevent circumvention of the first two definitions of
substantial, rather than to create a separate type of infringement.

The other EUCJ case that I'm aware of that has touched on the question is
Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD -
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=77503doclang=en ;
decent summary here:
http://www.mondaq.com/x/75750/IT+internet/New+ECJ+Database+Decision But the
case does not appear to be terribly relevant.

Some pretty decent summaries of BHB and other relevant caselaw, FYI:
- http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/EIPR_2005_3_databaseright.pdf‎
- The Legal Protection of Databases: A Comparative Analysis, By Estelle
Derclaye - available in the US on Google Books; search for substantial
part.
- Survey of French cases: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1989031


If we accept this definition of
 insubstantial as being true for geospatial databases in general, then
 their entire database could be extracted. If its true for OSM but not
 all other geospatial databases, we need to explain why.


I think it is pretty clear that this rule is only for OSM/ODBL, but it
wouldn't hurt to make that more explicit. (It *has* to be only about OSM,
because you can't judge whether something is substantial without knowing
about the nature of the database (quantitative) and how the data was
obtained (qualitative).)

Few other comments:

   - It might be helpful to link to
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features when talking about
   Features, assuming those are the same concept, which I admit I'm still not
   100% sure about?
   - It might be helpful to explain better why the page is focused on
   insubstantial rather than substantial.
   - The village/town distinction doesn't seem very helpful to me. If the
   goal really is to push out commercial projects, very few commercial
   projects are going to be viable at the town level - the vast majority will
   be national level, with a few exceptions for London/Paris/NY-level cities.
   So saying you can use towns would still block out most commercial use
   while perhaps allowing some small governments to do useful things. But I
   may be misunderstanding the goal here?
   - I find This definition aims to:...Build a case for the qualitative
   interpretation of Substantial to be slightly confusing - I *think* that
   what is meant is something like This guideline attempts to clarify what
   uses would constitute a substantial qualitative use of OSM data (perhaps
   implying that many important uses are not going to be quantitatively
   substantial?), but I'm really not sure. I would clarify or remove that.

Hope this is helpful-

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential datasource

2014-04-21 Thread Luis Villa 
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

 If they want to release it under public domain they should just stick a
 CC0 or PDDL license on it. This would be far simpler than trying to figure
 out how a grant of rights to a third-party organization affects us, and
 would allow the use of the data by anyone, including Wikipedia, without any
 further work.


To be clear, I don't think going through OTRS makes a lot of sense in this
specific case. But let me explain what OTRS is (not a grant of rights to a
third-party!), and why an approach like OTRS's could be useful for OSM to
think about in the future.

OTRS's process is for *recording* a *public* license. If you submit
material to OTRS through the process, what you're doing is explicitly
stating, in a binding format, that you've agreed to publish the material
under a public license. (Usually CC BY-SA, but no reason it couldn't CC0 or
similar PD waiver.) It is not a grant to Wikimedia specifically. Our role
is to keep the paperwork, so that if someone changes their mind later we
can say no, you made this grant; the grant was to the public, not just us;
and it was irrevocable.  Assuming a compatible license (like CC0) other
people/groups, like OSM, should be able to rely on the statement about the
license.

This process tends to be used in the Wikipedia community primarily when
there is some concern that the rights grant might not be genuine or
well-understood. An example is when a celebrity wants to grant us rights to
use their picture. The celebrity may not understand what they are giving up
- that the license is to the public, global, irrevocable, etc. And they may
not have other public means (like a website with licensing information) to
make a binding promise through. So instead of them just saying off-the-cuff
yeah, sure, do whatever you want, we get them on the record that they are
placing the picture under CC BY-SA. This protects both us and further
downstream users (which, again, could include OSM when the statement is
about a compatible license).

The reason this might be relevant for OSM is that a similar process might
be useful for governments and other big data donors. Ideally you want them
to make a clear promise to the world on their website - the license for
data X is Y. But if for some reason they can't do that, there is a
difference between a low-level bureaucrat saying yeah, sure, do whatever
you want and the relevant bosses, lawyers, legislatures, etc. signing off
and really agreeing to ODBL/CC0/etc. in a binding manner that the OSM
community can rely on.

I thought OSM already had such a process, but I don't see any mention of it
in this thread, so I must be confusing it with something else.

Hope that helps-
Luis




 *From:* Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:10 PM
 *To:* Stephan Knauss

 *Cc:* Licensing and other legal discussions.
 *Subject:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential
 datasource



 Oh i almost forgot. Well look, they could use the otrs for marking it as
 public domain. I am sure you can modify the otrs text to include a special
 text for osm as well.
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates


 so just add in the osm text as well as the creative commons. make it multi
 licensed.

 you might want to send them things about open public data initiatives :
 http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/
 http://project-open-data.github.io/
 http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Open_Data_Policy

   mike



 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
 wrote:

 If the data is creative commons we can't use it. We can't neither fulfill
 the attribution nor is it compatible with the contributor terms which
 allows changing the license.

 Stephan



 On April 19, 2014 5:19:54 PM CEST, Mike Dupont 
 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Well no, Mike, I don't think so.  What rights a publisher grants to
 Wikipedia has nothing to do with what rights a publisher grants to
 OpenStreetMap.  Wikipedia has no ownership interest in OpenStreetMap,
 nor vice-versa.



 If wikipedia is granted rights, it is not exclusive, if the data is under
 a public domain or creative commons then osm can use it. There is no data
 on wikipedia except fair use pictures that cannot be used in osm.

 mike





 --
 James Michael DuPont
 Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
 Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
 http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
 Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential datasource

2014-04-18 Thread Luis Villa 
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Mike Dupont 
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:

 the wikipedia has a nice otrs system, I supposed you could use it
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS

 so let them sign something that allows the data to be used by wikipedia
 and that should cover osm as well.


I'm not aware of data donations being made through OTRS. Not impossible to
do, of course, but it would have to be done carefully if it were actually
going to be useful for both Wikidata and OSM (given the licensing
differences).

Lydia, do you know of any cases where contributions have been made through
OTRS to Wikidata?

[I thought OSM already had a procedure for this, but I couldn't find it, so
I thought I'd reply to clarify that our process may or may not be enough.]

Luis



 On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Eric Jiang e...@doublemap.com wrote:

 Greetings,
 I am interested in better data for Indiana, USA, and would like to
 have someone else double-check that there are no legal/policy issues
 with using GIS data from IndianaMap[1] in OSM. I talked to one of
 their employees over the phone, and he said that the data is
 completely public, with no usage or attribution requirements or
 restrictions, and specifically confirmed that using it in OSM is OK.
 Terms on the metadata for what I'm interested in seem to say the
 same[2].

 Basically, I want to get a confirmation from more experienced OSM
 contributors before I explore the feasibility of importing any of this
 data. There might be general issues that I'm not aware of yet.

 [1] http://www.indianamap.org/resources.php
 [2]
 http://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Reference/Land_Parcels_County_IDHS.html

 Thanks!
 --
 Eric Jiang, DoubleMap
 Suite 300W | 748 E. Bates Street | Indianapolis, IN 46202
 www.doublemap.com | Office +1(855) 463-6655

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




 --
 James Michael DuPont
 Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
 Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
 http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
 Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec

2014-02-26 Thread Luis Villa 
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Diane Mercier diane.merc...@gmail.comwrote:


 I reiterate. It is the responsibility of OSM Foundation to instruct his
 community of his CC 4.0 interpretation as it has done for the CC 2.0 and CC
 3.0
 And in my humble opinion, the tiles and the BD licenses should updates to
 CC 4.0 to reduce proliferation of license, etc.


Note that this is a substantially different task for 4.0 than for 3.0,
because 4.0 (particularly BY-SA) now includes a database copyleft clause.
Assessing how the ODBL and CC BY-SA 4.0 database clauses interact will be
challenging. OSM/Open Data Commons could simplify the problem by declaring
that CC 4.0 is a compatible license under ODBL 4.4(a)(iii), but there
would still be some complexities to work through.

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk