On 31/10/2012 11:50, Jonathan Harley wrote:
On 30/10/12 13:47, Michael Collinson wrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote:
[snip]
One thing that's confusing me, is that
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license
applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies
to the database and a separate license is required for the contents.
It suggests that a notice should be inserted "prominently in all
relevant locations" which surely includes the copyright wiki page.
I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the
contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone?
Hi Jonathan,
The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and
that the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low
priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can
be more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without
using tortuous language. It has been a while.
I really think it does need to be more obvious. The copyright page is
the obvious place for prospective consumers of OSM data to find out
what they can do with it. It doesn't currently mention the CTs, nor
would a consumer who is not an OSM contributor think of looking at the
CTs. ODbL itself recommends that we give a clear statement about what
license applies to the database contents, and we're not doing that.
Also, thanks for your clarification yesterday about copyright.
It strikes me that the Community Guidelines pages are not structured
in a way that's very easy for a prospective data consumer to use, and
that what we need is something more goal-oriented; perhaps broken down
by use-cases, "if you want to do this... your legal requirements are
this".
1) does something like that exist and I've missed it?
2) if no, has the LWG considered doing something like that?
3) if no, should I have a stab at a draft for OSM-legal-talk to
comment on?
The main resource the LWG has worked on is the Foundation
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License FAQ which is aimed solely at
end users. It expands slowly as of course we have to be very careful
what we say and to say it in clear language for non-native english
speakers and for unambiguity. We've considered what you have proposed,
but got no further. I would therefore be delighted to take you up on
your offer and thank you. It would also be great to get the
OSM-legal-talk community involved as there are folks who really are end
users, (LWG is not), and can better critique both the use cases and
whether the answers enlighten or confuse.
May I suggest that you either start a new master page as
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases or use
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases as a
trial area? The whole Open_Data_License/* structure needs clean-up now
the license change is through. Also the Community Guidelines page per
se,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines,
is designed for presenting a small number of specific grey areas and
what the OSM community feels to be an elegant solution.
Lastly, I am adding an initial "What should my lawyer look at?" section
to the Foundation FAQ to start addressing your other comments now.
Thanks for your feedback.
Mike
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
