Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

davespod wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > Mike Collinson wrote
> > > "It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector
> information 
> > I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!
> I'm afraid it does.

For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
have checked and no, the OS OpenData licence does not refer to pubic sector
information. My wife has expressly stated that no-one on this frigging list
is allowed anywhere near my pubic sector, let alone Vanessa Lawrence.

> So, the question is does the modification of the terms invalidate the 
> part of the OGL guaranteeing ODC-by compatibility?

No, it doesn't. Firstly, the only additional requirement is a downstream
attribution requirement, which is already present in the ODC attribution
licences. Secondly, the OS blog posting expressly mentioned becoming "fully
interoperable" with ODC as a change from the previous licence.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5901307.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

John Smith wrote:
> Erm doesn't that invalidate the "flexibility" or relicense in future
> people keep going on about?

I think Mike already answered that one at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005716.html
.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5900192.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[John Smith]

On 8 January 2011 03:12, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state "You are indicating that, as
> far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute
> those Contents under our _current_ licence terms" (my emphasis). They also
> only require that you grant rights to OSMF "to the extent that you are able
> to do so", so the fact that you can't grant rights over and above those
> required by ODbL is not a problem.

Erm doesn't that invalidate the "flexibility" or relicense in future
people keep going on about?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mike Collinson wrote:
> Thanks, David.  Bother.  Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted 
> Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling 
> a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old 
> problematic license.  Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby.

No, we won't.

OS's OGLified licence remains compatible with the ODbL, because of the
express ODC compatibility clause (which is mentioned in the OS blog
posting).

So the downstream attribution requirement may only be a problem in the
future if OSMF chooses to move to a licence without it (assuming that OSMF
considers that CT 4 gives it that right).

But that isn't a problem now.

Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state "You are indicating that, as
far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute
those Contents under our _current_ licence terms" (my emphasis). They also
only require that you grant rights to OSMF "to the extent that you are able
to do so", so the fact that you can't grant rights over and above those
required by ODbL is not a problem.

> [...]
> "It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector information

I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5900022.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[John Smith]

On 8 January 2011 01:38, John Smith  wrote:
> I keep getting told that the "flexibility" is in the best interests of
> the project, if this were true why is it more common for commercial
> entities to require this, where as most other things like the linux
> kernel has clearly defined principals that the project is based on.

Actually now that I think about it, I'd love pay for ring side seats
to see the outcome of such "flexibility" if linux kernel contributors
were made to agree to such a contract before they could upload code,
so the project might have "flexibility" if contributors in future
thought some other license would be better for the project and well
GPL v BSD arguments of the past would look like a friendly get
together.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[John Smith]

On 8 January 2011 01:21, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> I naturally would prefer the term "flexibility" rather than "indecisiveness" 
> :-) and that it is a highly strategic feature not a bug.

I don't see it as flexibility, I see it as "indecisiveness", I can
only imagine how disorganised and a mess linux kernel development
would be without a clear outlook on licensing, linux is clearly GPL
and BSD is clearly BSD licensed, it's not going to chop and change at
the whim of a small vocal group.

> I hope you will stay contributing and be a party to future collective 
> decisions whether or not we personally agree.  OSM is a very, very long life 
> project about free and open geodata. Share-alike and PD are tools just as 
> Ruby-on-Rails is. Flexibility on those tools is important for three reasons.

I can't and won't continue to contribute to OSM-F after the CT becomes
mandatory. Just as Frederik made it clear he wouldn't continue with
OSM-F if PD wasn't possible in future. This is a moral issue for me
and I can't give OSM-F a blank cheque just as Nearmap won't.

> - The first is short-term, internal to OSM and political.  There are broadly 
> two main groups of contributors, share-alike and PD proponents.  Each side 
> claims to be in the majority so the reality is that both sides are roughly 
> even and neither can claim moral ascendency. My goal is consensus between 
> those two groups: we stay share-alike, we pioneer a coherent share-alike 
> license for highly factual data and we explore how it can work in the real 
> world. If it works well, the 2/3 majority required to make a change 
> effectively locks in share-alike.  Otherwise, the PD proponents who 
> reluctantly go along can try and persuade us why a PD-like license can best 
> serve the open data movement, and they have a rational, democratic mechanism 
> to do so.  If enthusiastic supporters of either side are unhappy, then I have 
> done my job well :-)

This should be of great concern, if you think those expressing
opinions now against the CT is bad, imagine the fireworks over such a
moral and personal issue. This is bordering on a religious debate and
well people have been blowing up churches lately because of
differences of religious opinions. In fact the only non-religious
based conflict at present is North Korea.

> - OpenStreetMap is THE pioneer in creating and licensing open highly 
> granular, high factual data. It took over 10 years for the choices for 
> licensing open software to become obvious and reasonably mature. We are only 
> 6 years in and still discussing our opening move.

I see the ODBL as a step backwards, the license is so complex and so
misunderstood even by those promoting it that how is everyone else
going to cope, at least with a simple copyright license expectations
and so forth are well understood, and while you seem to be implying
map data is a simple database of factual information, this is a bone
of contention as others have pointed out that maps can be
copyrightable regardless of the format they may reside in, and maps
were the first thing copyrightable. At present the only issue seems to
be that CC-by-SA lacks a database clause.

> -The flexibility is ultimately for the long, long term.  A very large 
> percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years time, just as 
> I can still navigate using a local 1891 OS map. We are on the extreme end as 
> to the potential life of our project. Software, even operating systems, come 
> and go and get re-written with fresh perspectives.  If, as happens, they die 
> because the licensing regimen did not anticipate the future, it is not such a 
> big deal. For us, it is.  Share-alike is a tool to progressing the goal of 
> Open IP, not an end in itself. May be it will have outlived its utility in 
> 10, 50 or 100 years, may be it won't.

I keep getting told that the "flexability" is in the best interests of
the project, if this were true was is it more common for commercial
entities to require this, where as most other things like the linux
kernel has clearly defined principals that the project is based on.
This will only end in tears.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[John Smith]

On 8 January 2011 01:33, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand.  The last figures 
> I compiled for OSM data imports are:

>From what I've been told privately by people on the inside is that
they're not happy that they've been "encouraged" to share at all, and
the lack of suitable attribution would give them the ammo they needed
to be able to not have to share in future.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Mike Collinson]

At 02:20 PM 7/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> requirement.  Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes
>
>I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
>published data under the same/similar license.

Thanks, I'll follow up with finding an appropriate office to write to in New 
Zealand unless anyone from there can help.

The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand.  The last figures I 
compiled for OSM data imports are:

CC-BY: 10  (Australia 9 (possibly + 2?),  New Zealand 1) 

CC-BY-SA: 13 (Poland 1, Germany 5*, Czech Republic 1, Wikipedia 1, France 1, 
Sweden 1, The Netherlands 2, UK 1, Australia 1 [Nearmap]) 

* The German figure is apparently mostly or all due to data being specially 
licensed to OSM as CC-BY-SA by request.


Mike





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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years 
> time

Database rights only last 15 years, though, and facts can't be copyrighted.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Mike Collinson]

At 08:28 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>On 7 January 2011 05:14, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> I almost wish that Tobias Knerr's words earlier in this thread were my own:
>>
>> "The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building
>> a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to
>> each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between
>> "my data", "your data" and "their data".
>> As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective,
>> not individual, decisions."
>
>And I wish the indecisiveness built into the CTs didn't exist and the
>project had a clear outlook on where it was going, because at present
>even if the CT/ODBL is accepted it looks like some will push for
>further license changes to PD.
>
>If OSM is going to PD, fine, but please make this decision clear and
>communicate it well, if it's going to stay share a like, fine, but at
>present it's neither and this will continue to be a thorn.


I naturally would prefer the term "flexibility" rather than "indecisiveness" 
:-) and that it is a highly strategic feature not a bug. 

I hope you will stay contributing and be a party to future collective decisions 
whether or not we personally agree.  OSM is a very, very long life project 
about free and open geodata. Share-alike and PD are tools just as Ruby-on-Rails 
is. Flexibility on those tools is important for three reasons.

- The first is short-term, internal to OSM and political.  There are broadly 
two main groups of contributors, share-alike and PD proponents.  Each side 
claims to be in the majority so the reality is that both sides are roughly even 
and neither can claim moral ascendency. My goal is consensus between those two 
groups: we stay share-alike, we pioneer a coherent share-alike license for 
highly factual data and we explore how it can work in the real world. If it 
works well, the 2/3 majority required to make a change effectively locks in 
share-alike.  Otherwise, the PD proponents who reluctantly go along can try and 
persuade us why a PD-like license can best serve the open data movement, and 
they have a rational, democratic mechanism to do so.  If enthusiastic 
supporters of either side are unhappy, then I have done my job well :-)

- OpenStreetMap is THE pioneer in creating and licensing open highly granular, 
high factual data. It took over 10 years for the choices for licensing open 
software to become obvious and reasonably mature. We are only 6 years in and 
still discussing our opening move. 

-The flexibility is ultimately for the long, long term.  A very large 
percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years time, just as I 
can still navigate using a local 1891 OS map. We are on the extreme end as to 
the potential life of our project. Software, even operating systems, come and 
go and get re-written with fresh perspectives.  If, as happens, they die 
because the licensing regimen did not anticipate the future, it is not such a 
big deal. For us, it is.  Share-alike is a tool to progressing the goal of Open 
IP, not an end in itself. May be it will have outlived its utility in 10, 50 or 
100 years, may be it won't.

Mike 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[John Smith]

On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> requirement.  Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes

I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
published data under the same/similar license.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Mike Collinson]

At 08:36 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to
>> do with the end user license:
>>
>> 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s holder’s option, OSMF agrees to
>> attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided,
>> currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.
>
>This would only be useful if there is a chain to follow it back to
>OSM, this is specific to OS/Nearmap type situations, they don't
>require explicit attributions with map tiles, but they do require
>attribution can be found, and while OSM offers to attribute on their
>website, downstream may not be subject to the same requirements which
>is where clause 3 breaks or contradicts clause 4.

Thanks, now I understand. You are entirely correct that there is no perpetual 
guarantee of a chain to follow back to OSM (and thence to a third party).  
Clause 4 only provides what I call level 1 attribution as described below.  It 
can survive and is practical and courteous to implement even if the 
distribution license, (i.e. a successor to ODbL), eventually went completely 
PD, which is why there is no contradiction or breakage by clause 3.

In the case of the UK OS, there is a switch from a potential requirement for 
level 4 attribution to a clear requirement for level 1, so the Open Government 
Licence is definitely good news for handling highly granular data.

In the case of Nearmap, it is my understanding, Ben might like to comment or 
contradict, that level 1 is livable with. The real concern being the possible 
that future OSM generations might want to drop share-alike. 

In the case of CC-BY, there is some opinion that level 4 is a clear 
requirement.  Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes data 
under this license, I have therefore written to the Australian Attorney 
General's Office requesting explicit permission to use attribution level 1 and 
2 with level 3 on a best effort basis.


Mike

Third-Party Attribution Levels

Level 1:

OSM(F) acknowledges third party sources on its website or however 
technology/social trends change in the future.  There is no attempt to get end 
users of OSM data to do the same.  This is what CT clause 4 does, and only 
this. 

Level 2:

When any OSM data is "published", i.e. copied from an OSM(F) website via a 
planet dump or API, XAPI call, there is something physically present in the 
material transferred that acknowledges third parties.  It is LWG policy to 
implement this.  That something might be a complete list of third party sources 
used any where by OSM plus their preferred attribution language. Or it might be 
a link back to the level 1 attribution statement.  At the current level of 
network bandwidth, the first is impractical for API calls for single nodes. The 
LWG is therefore adopting the link mechanism initially and this work is almost 
complete.  When working and provenly practical, the LWG will be happy to make a 
minor CT update adding it to clause 4.  Note also that encouraging tagging with 
a "source" tag is also useful in this regard, however it is only a best effort 
as not all contributors will  and source tags may get change or get deleted 
over time.

Level 3:

End-users re-distributing a copy of the OSM database or a derivative database 
are required to maintain any third-party attribution information intact. Messy 
in the case of very small extracts and in source tags, but not impossible. 
However, I would not like to force future generations of OSMers to require this 
in perpetuity, (in reality about 135 years given the current age of many 
contributors).  Consistent source tagging, and appending to source tags rather 
changing them, helps this on a best-effort but not guarenteed basis.

Level 4:

End-users have to acknowledge third-parties in maps they make.  I am vehemently 
opposed to this for any form of highly granular data.  Even if individual 
contributors are excluded, requiring a list of several hundred sources is not 
practical and will become worse when OSM data itself is just one of several 
sources used to make a map. Regretfully, imported CC-BY's "at least as 
prominent" for each source exacerbates this situation.

For a longer but outdated discussion see "5. A look at third party 
Attribution", LWG minutes 12th Oct 2010:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc
  ___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk