Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[Rob Myers]

On 08/24/2010 01:33 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:

On 24/08/2010 11:35, Ed Avis wrote:

... under the proposed ODbL or whether it would technically be in
breach of the
contract-law provisions

But presumably I as Joe Mapper wouldn't be restricted in going back to
the OS with a bunch of errors that I've found after comparing what I've
mapped with what the OS throught was there (on the "my data is mine and
I can licence it however else I like as well" principle)?


I also doubt that a few error corrections extracted from the DB would 
count as substantial, although IANAL etc.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[SomeoneElse]

 On 24/08/2010 11:35, Ed Avis wrote:
... under the proposed ODbL or whether it would technically be in 
breach of the

contract-law provisions
But presumably I as Joe Mapper wouldn't be restricted in going back to 
the OS with a bunch of errors that I've found after comparing what I've 
mapped with what the OS throught was there (on the "my data is mine and 
I can licence it however else I like as well" principle)?




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[Ed Avis]

Jukka Rahkonen  writes:

>It may be hard to give something back from OSM to many of the data 
>providers. Public domain sources like USGS cannot take the updates 
>because they are funded for producing public domain data 
>(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-July/020016.html). 
>Ordance Survey can't take updates because it is also selling licenses 
>for commercial use.

For the Ordnance Survey, there is a small amount of cooperation from OSM in the
form of a list of street name errors which they have agreed to look at.  Since
this is just a list of possible mistakes, it is generally held that this does 
not
breach copyright.  It is an interesting question whether this could continue
under the proposed ODbL or whether it would technically be in breach of the
contract-law provisions.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[James Livingston]

On 23/08/2010, at 6:54 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> It may be hard to give something back from OSM to many of the data 
> providers. Public domain sources like USGS cannot take the updates 
> because they are funded for producing public domain data 
> (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-July/020016.html). 
> Ordance Survey can't take updates because it is also selling licenses 
> for commercial use. Thus both the European and American mapping agencies 
> have one thing in common, they can't accept updates from OSM community 
> but they need to build their own community feed back systems.

That's going to be a problem no matter what license anyone picks, us or them. 
The only way that you can have free two-way reuse is for both parties to 1) use 
exactly the same licence, or 2) for both parties not constrain the licensing on 
derived works.

(1) isn't feasible because we would want that reuse with multiple parties and 
that would mean every single group we want to share data with would have to use 
the same license. Various companies and governments around the world aren't 
going to use exactly the same licence because the legal environment is 
different.

(2) isn't going to happen because that would mean everyone essentially saying 
that their work can be re-licensed by any to an license that choose.

One group requires attribution (e.g. the ABS) and one group can't require it 
(USGS), no matter what we do, we can't have two-way reuse with both those 
parties.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[Jukka Rahkonen]

andrzej zaborowski  writes:

> That's what I think the plan is.  However it is made very difficult by
> the fact that those data providers most likely chose their SA licenses
> in order to be able to use any improvements made on top of their data,
> which we are planning to very soon make impossible for them.  So we
> now approach them and say "Hello, can you please grant all these..
> perpetual.. irrevocable.. etc. rights to something called OSMF, and by
> the way you won't be able to use OSM data any more because our new
> license is not compatible with yours".

It may be hard to give something back from OSM to many of the data 
providers. Public domain sources like USGS cannot take the updates 
because they are funded for producing public domain data 
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-July/020016.html). 
Ordance Survey can't take updates because it is also selling licenses 
for commercial use. Thus both the European and American mapping agencies 
have one thing in common, they can't accept updates from OSM community 
but they need to build their own community feed back systems.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[Ed Avis]

andrzej zaborowski  writes:

>That's what I think the plan is.  However it is made very difficult by
>the fact that those data providers most likely chose their SA licenses
>in order to be able to use any improvements made on top of their data,
>which we are planning to very soon make impossible for them.  So we
>now approach them and say "Hello, can you please grant all these..
>perpetual.. irrevocable.. etc. rights to something called OSMF, and by
>the way you won't be able to use OSM data any more because our new
>license is not compatible with yours".

Agreed.  If we are encouraging others to open up their data, we need to lead
by example and be open with ours.  There is a lot of discussion on this list
about whether licence X is compatible to allow us to take data into the project,
but very little about what this project can do to let our data be used by
others.

Now, ODbL allows a list of compatible licences.  We could quite 
straightforwardly
add CC-BY-SA as such a licence to allow sharing back of data under the normal
share-alike terms.  (If somebody used that licence and distributed their work
under CC-BY-SA, we could not import it back into OSM, but that is the case under
the proposed contributor terms too, even if the other party used the ODbL.)

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[andrzej zaborowski]

Hi,

On 22 August 2010 18:44, David Groom  wrote:
> Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence.  Since we
> could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to "our" data, it seems
> reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to
> other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be
> blindly importing  CC-BY-SA data into OSM.  I presume we will be approaching
> providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that
> data in OSM.  So our permission to use the data will stem not from a
> CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright
> holder.

That's what I think the plan is.  However it is made very difficult by
the fact that those data providers most likely chose their SA licenses
in order to be able to use any improvements made on top of their data,
which we are planning to very soon make impossible for them.  So we
now approach them and say "Hello, can you please grant all these..
perpetual.. irrevocable.. etc. rights to something called OSMF, and by
the way you won't be able to use OSM data any more because our new
license is not compatible with yours".

I'm in a situation where a lot of the data I uploaded is derived from
a CC-By-SA source.  Unclear as this license is, it surely guarantees
one thing: that the works can be mixed with other equally licensed
works, and the source can feed the improvements made by OSM back into
their database.  And they were doing this often, to the point that we
(well... some of us) were hoping to converge into one database.
Suddenly we are changing the license and will not let them continue
mixing the data.  At the same time we want to ask them a significant
favour.

It's also quite difficult if that source has a couple of 1000s of
contributors, some of them anonymous (though I think the anonymous
editions now become something called "orphaned works" and I don't know
what copyright says about these)

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[80n]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Groom wrote:

> - Original Message - From: "80n" <80n...@gmail.com>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."  >
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a
> philosophical point
>
>
>
>  On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom > >wrote:
>>
>>  Why are we changing the licence?  Well [1] states among other things that
>>> "
>>> [CC-BY-SA]  is therefore very difficult to interpret",  and we have
>>> indeed
>>> seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and
>>> can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found.
>>>
>>> If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of
>>> our
>>> data were asked to take a cautious approach.  And that seems very
>>> reasonable
>>> stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of
>>> OSM
>>> data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not
>>> categorically say how  CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence.  Since we
>>> could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to "our" data, it seems
>>> reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to
>>> other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be
>>> blindly importing  CC-BY-SA data into OSM.  I presume we will be
>>> approaching
>>> providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use
>>> that
>>> data in OSM.  So our permission to use the data will stem not from a
>>> CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright
>>> holder.
>>>
>>> Or am I missing something?
>>>
>>> David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT.
>>>
>>
>> CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM.
>>
>>
> 80n
> Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that.  As I titled the
> post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of
> the CT's & ODbL.
>
>
David, I know that you realise that.  I just wanted to clarify this for the
benefit of others reading this thread who may not have the detailed
background knowledge or stumble on this thread out of context.



> I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT & ODbl is where I
> asked if  "we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA
> licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM.  So our permission to use
> the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit
> permission given by the copyright holder".  As such it then wouldn't  matter
> if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT & ODbL as we would not be relying
> on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison.
>
> David
>
>
>  80n
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use
>>> their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA,
>>> and
>>> surely the CC-BY-SA permissions "flow though into" the OSM data. In which
>>> case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same
>>> permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret)
>>> still
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything
>>> about
>>> it on the implementation plan [2]
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F
>>>
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "80n" <80n...@gmail.com>

To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a 
philosophical point



On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom 
wrote:


Why are we changing the licence?  Well [1] states among other things that 
"
[CC-BY-SA]  is therefore very difficult to interpret",  and we have 
indeed

seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and
can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found.

If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of 
our
data were asked to take a cautious approach.  And that seems very 
reasonable
stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of 
OSM

data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not
categorically say how  CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was
needed.

Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence.  Since we
could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to "our" data, it seems
reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to
other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be
blindly importing  CC-BY-SA data into OSM.  I presume we will be 
approaching
providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use 
that

data in OSM.  So our permission to use the data will stem not from a
CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright
holder.

Or am I missing something?

David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT.


CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM.



80n
Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that.  As I titled the 
post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of 
the CT's & ODbL.


I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT & ODbl is where I asked 
if  "we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence 
and asking if we can use that data in OSM.  So our permission to use the 
data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission 
given by the copyright holder".  As such it then wouldn't  matter if 
CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT & ODbL as we would not be relying on 
the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison.


David


80n





Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use
their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, 
and

surely the CC-BY-SA permissions "flow though into" the OSM data. In which
case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same
permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) 
still

exist.

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything 
about

it on the implementation plan [2]

David


[1]
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F

[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan







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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[80n]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom wrote:

> Why are we changing the licence?  Well [1] states among other things that "
> [CC-BY-SA]  is therefore very difficult to interpret",  and we have indeed
> seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and
> can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found.
>
> If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our
> data were asked to take a cautious approach.  And that seems very reasonable
> stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM
> data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not
> categorically say how  CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was
> needed.
>
> Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence.  Since we
> could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to "our" data, it seems
> reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to
> other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be
> blindly importing  CC-BY-SA data into OSM.  I presume we will be approaching
> providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that
> data in OSM.  So our permission to use the data will stem not from a
> CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright
> holder.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT.

CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM.

80n




> Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use
> their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and
> surely the CC-BY-SA permissions "flow though into" the OSM data. In which
> case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same
> permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still
> exist.
>
> Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about
> it on the implementation plan [2]
>
> David
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F
>
> [2]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan
>
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point

[David Groom]

Why are we changing the licence?  Well [1] states among other things that " 
[CC-BY-SA]  is therefore very difficult to interpret",  and we have indeed 
seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and 
can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found.


If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our 
data were asked to take a cautious approach.  And that seems very reasonable 
stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM 
data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not 
categorically say how  CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was 
needed.


Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence.  Since we 
could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to "our" data, it seems 
reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to 
other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be 
blindly importing  CC-BY-SA data into OSM.  I presume we will be approaching 
providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that 
data in OSM.  So our permission to use the data will stem not from a 
CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright 
holder.


Or am I missing something?

Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use 
their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and 
surely the CC-BY-SA permissions "flow though into" the OSM data. In which 
case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same 
permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still 
exist.


Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about 
it on the implementation plan [2]


David


[1] 
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F


[2] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan 






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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Mike Collinson]

At 10:46 AM 14/08/2010, Rob Myers wrote:
>On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote:
>>
>>If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved,
>>then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary.
>
>The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find out 
>which dataset was used to produce it, and from a given dataset you can find 
>out who produced it.
>
>BY-SA already requires less attribution than the GNU FDL, and this was an 
>issue for some people when Wikipedia was relicenced -
>
>https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Attribution
>
>- Rob.

And section 4 of the Contributor Terms is designed for first-stage attribution 
of data donors irrespective of license used.

Thanks Rob for the article. I was struck by the moderate importance attached in 
the survey result to the wiki(pedia) history page.  It has bothered me that 
though attribution is a good abstract idea , we lacked a similar mechanism in a 
database of highly factual non-immutable data to make it sticky.  It strikes me 
that the work by Matt now gives a practical analogue of that in the history 
planet dump that has now been published.  Speculatively, it is perhaps 
something we should commit to continue publishing as part of our attribution 
commitments.

Mike 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Anthony]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
 wrote:
> However, lets suppose (hope?) that the CT's are changed so they're no
> longer a problem. The question still remains as to whether CC-By or
> CC-By-SA are compatible with ODbL+DbCL.

If the work is copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't compatible with ODbL.
CC-BY-SA isn't compatible with anything but CC-BY-SA (including later
and jurisdiction-specific versions) and a license which CC has
declared to be compatible.  At this time, "Creative Commons has not
approved any licenses for compatibility"
(http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses).

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give
> OSMF rights that you don't possess.
>
> CC-BY-SA does not grant you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
> perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
> copyright" and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF.  Its as simple as
> that isn't it?

With the current CTs, yes I think it is that simple. And CC-By is
incompatible for the same reasons.

However, lets suppose (hope?) that the CT's are changed so they're no
longer a problem. The question still remains as to whether CC-By or
CC-By-SA are compatible with ODbL+DbCL.

>From my understanding of things, there are two potential problems:

First, DbCL requires the owner of the submitted content to give up and
copyright on individual data items. (It's that "worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license
to do any act that is restricted by copyright" phrase again.) That's
certainly not a right that's granted by the CC licenses, though
depending on the jurisdiction and type of data you may be able to
argue that there was never any copyright on the individual data items
anyway. Some data providers may strongly contest that though.

Secondly, the provisions for produced works in ODbL mean that they can
be released with no direct attribution to the original source (only
the ODbL database they're produced from needs to be credited), nor any
specific restrictions / freedoms on attribution or licensing for
further downstream reuse. I believe that this ability is incompatible
with the requirements of the CC-By and CC-SA licenses, and hence under
ODbL 4.4(d) you would not be permitted to add CC-By or CC-SA licensed
data to an ODbL database that's going to be "publicly used".

(This second point has been acknowledged informally as a potential
issue by Ordnance Survey when I enquired about the possibility of
using OS OpenData under ODbL. They've yet to get back to me with a
formal response though.)

Unlike the CTs, I think there's a reasonable chance that data
providers currently using CC-By or CC-By-SA could be persuaded to
explicitly allow under ODbL+DbCL. But my current conclusion is that it
would not be permitted to import CC-By, CC-SA or CC-By-SA data into an
ODbL+DbCL database.

Given the use of CC licensed data in OSM at the moment, and the
possibility of amended CTs (at least for some large data providers) I
think these points need urgent clarification by OSMF's lawyers -- and
it would be good to ask the ODbL+DbCL authors at ODC for their views
too.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Francis Davey wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst  wrote
> > Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was 
> > CC-BY - a much easier problem.
> But still incompatible with the contributor terms in the sense 
> that a CC-BY licensee does not have sufficient rights to agree 
> to them. No-one could lawfully take CC-BY data and 
> contribute it via the contributor terms of course.

Indeed, but one which should be fixable by minor modifications to the
contributor terms (which some of us are suggesting to OSMF that they do) and
potentially offering a derogation from the terms for certain data sources. 

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-CC-BY-SA-is-compatible-with-ODbL-tp5422512p5422915.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] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Kevin Peat]

On 14 August 2010 10:14, Francis Davey  wrote:

> On 14 August 2010 10:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> >
> > I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data
> > under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data
> > but only for works?
>
> There may be institutional reasons for it (eg "we always use this
> licence").
>
>
> It seems to me that use of these licenses by governments started about the
time osm decided they were no good and continues to accelerate. I also find
it very odd that this project with extremely limited legal resources feels
like it knows better than the large legal teams that governments and state
bodies have.

If governments release large amounts of data under these licenses and they
turn out to not offer the correct protection then wouldn't they just change
the law so they do work?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Francis Davey]

On 14 August 2010 10:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data
> under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data
> but only for works?

There may be institutional reasons for it (eg "we always use this licence").

The data might also be subject to copyright either individually or as
a copyrightable database (in places where that is possible, such as
the EU) or some other form of copyright in a collection.

Eg, football fixtures lists are subject to copyright in the UK:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/841.html

Because their creation required creative input. The Post Office (in
the UK) might be able to argue copyright in the post code database (or
some part of it) on the same lines.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[John Smith]

On 14 August 2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data
> under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data
> but only for works?

That was Liz's point, and they usually have more lawyers than we might
ever have access to.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/14 John Smith :
> On 14 August 2010 18:46, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>> Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much
>> easier problem.
>
> To the best of my knowledge you are correct. Perhaps he was thinking
> of some other country that has had cc-by-sa data imported?


I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data
under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data
but only for works?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[John Smith]

On 14 August 2010 18:46, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much
> easier problem.

To the best of my knowledge you are correct. Perhaps he was thinking
of some other country that has had cc-by-sa data imported?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Francis Davey]

On 14 August 2010 09:46, Richard Fairhurst  wrote
>
> Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much
> easier problem.
>

But still incompatible with the contributor terms in the sense that a
CC-BY licensee does not have sufficient rights to agree to them.
No-one could lawfully take CC-BY data and contribute it via the
contributor terms of course.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Rob Myers]

On 08/14/2010 09:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


Michael Collinson wrote:

I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing
begins"  to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in
view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community.  I
understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle
for releasing government data.


Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much
easier problem.


UK Govt. data is also CC-BY.

Which I really must ask someone about.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Michael Collinson wrote:
> I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing 
> begins"  to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in 
> view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community.  I 
> understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle 
> for releasing government data.

Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much
easier problem.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-CC-BY-SA-is-compatible-with-ODbL-tp5422512p5422694.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] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Rob Myers]

On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote:


If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved,
then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary.


The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find 
out which dataset was used to produce it, and from a given dataset you 
can find out who produced it.


BY-SA already requires less attribution than the GNU FDL, and this was 
an issue for some people when Wikipedia was relicenced -


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Attribution

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Francis Davey]

On 14 August 2010 09:22, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give
> OSMF rights that you don't possess.
>
> CC-BY-SA does not grant you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
> perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
> copyright" and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF.  Its as simple as
> that isn't it?
>

That looks right to me. In order to comply with section 2 of the
contributor terms and contributor must be able to grant an extremely
widely drafted licence. If the contributor is merely a licensee under
CC-BY-SA they will not be able to comply with section 2 of the
contributor terms.

I also think its pretty clear that, in context, section 1 would not be
complied with either. It would be impossible for a CC licensee to
agree to "You have explicit permission from the rights holder to
submit the Contents and grant the license below." since CC-BY-SA does
not give that permission.

Apologies if this misses the point: I am a lawyer not a mapper.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[80n]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Mike Collinson  wrote:

>  At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom 
> wrote:
>  b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or
> CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general
> permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use
> in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I
> have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT
> permission to do so.
>
>
> David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the
> Contributor Terms.  If you have added content that is licensed under
> CC-BY-SA you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms.
>
> I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is
> compatible with OBdL and CT.  It is not.
>
>
> I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins"  to legal
> talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our
> Australian community.  I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred
> vehicle for releasing government data.  I am inclined to agree with 80n,
> though in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too
> potentially broad in their virality. I present this for the purposes of
> discussion and do not see my conclusions as immutable. I focus on
> Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a consideration.
>
>
In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give
OSMF rights that you don't possess.

CC-BY-SA does not grant you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
copyright" and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF.  Its as simple as
that isn't it?


80n






> I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last
> of NearMap of Australia ( http://www.nearmap.com).  They allow use of
> their PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative
> Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most
> cordial and helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from
> their own perspective.  I hope they will share some of the conclusions they
> reach, both for the perspective and the authoritative opinion.
>
> --
>
> To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this:
>
> Write a word processor  --X-->  Write a book with the software.
>
> Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS
> possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book.  But if the
> software is improved to write the book and software is published, then
> software improvements must be available Share Alike.
>
> ODbL is slightly stronger:
>
> Create map data --X--> Make a map
>
> Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in
> reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible
> data to make the map under certain conditions.  But if the data is improved
> and the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be
> available Share Alike.
>
> But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus
> can potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original
> publisher feels they want to exert(?).
>
> Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community:
>
> Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA  -> Create map data with some imagery
> tracing -> Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map;
> ...
>
> ODbL breaks the chain at the second "->", either because the extract is
> not substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA
> does not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?).
>
> Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative
> works.  It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and
> information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing.  If you believe
> strongly in  pandemic virality, then it is a good thing.  If you believe
> that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more
> constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why
> most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal is
> disseminating data we collect ourselves.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Liz]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
> Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative
> works.  It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and
> information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing.  If you believe
> strongly in  pandemic virality, then it is a good thing.  If you believe
> that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more
> constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why
> most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal
> is disseminating data we collect ourselves.


alternate conclusion, 

If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, 
then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary.

If you believe that the data should be completely freely available then 
neither ODBL nor CC-by-SA is appropriate, and a CC0 licence should be 
considered.

If your major concern is that improvements to the data should be fed back into 
the common pool of data, then CC-by or CC-by-SA would be suitable (and maybe 
others)

Please leave out very emotive language like "dangerous" and unproven 
assertions like "most of us" without defining "us". I realise that it was 
headed "personal conclusion".

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Mike Collinson]

At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom 
><revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or 
>CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general 
>permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use in 
>OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I have 
>permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT permission 
>to do so.
>
>
>David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the 
>Contributor Terms.  If you have added content that is licensed under CC-BY-SA 
>you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms.  
>
>I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is 
>compatible with OBdL and CT.  It is not.

I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins"  to legal 
talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our 
Australian community.  I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred 
vehicle for releasing government data.  I am inclined to agree with 80n, though 
in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too potentially broad in 
their virality. I present this for the purposes of discussion and do not see my 
conclusions as immutable. I focus on Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a 
consideration.

I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last of 
NearMap of Australia (http://www.nearmap.com).  They allow use of  their 
PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative Commons 
Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most cordial and 
helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from their own 
perspective.  I hope they will share some of the conclusions they reach, both 
for the perspective and the authoritative opinion.

--

To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this:

Write a word processor  --X-->  Write a book with the software.

Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS 
possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book.  But if the 
software is improved to write the book and software is published, then software 
improvements must be available Share Alike.

ODbL is slightly stronger:

Create map data --X--> Make a map

Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in 
reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible 
data to make the map under certain conditions.  But if the data is improved and 
the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be available 
Share Alike.

But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus can 
potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original publisher 
feels they want to exert(?).

Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community:

Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA  -> Create map data with some imagery tracing 
-> Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map; ...

ODbL breaks the chain at the second "->", either because the extract is not 
substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA does 
not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?).

Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative works.  
It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and information, and 
if it is, it is vague and confusing.  If you believe strongly in  pandemic 
virality, then it is a good thing.  If you believe that all the chain of 
Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just 
dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from 
it as our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect 
ourselves.

Mike


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