Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status
Hi, On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:38:09AM -0400, John Wilbanks wrote: > I'm still lurking on this list - rather than demagogue the issue, I'm > mainly watching the comments and trying to learn from them. I was referring to myself when I wrote about exaggerated preaching on the pro-PD side (which any talk-legal regular probably understood). I found your statements in this discussion to be rather matter-of-fact. > Thus, I think that the Share Alike choice on data is a closed choice > in disguise I find that lots of people are advocating more "closed" approaches in many parts of the project (e.g. forcing people to stick to certain tagging rules or mapping techniques, forcing edits through a review process, defining centrally which WMS backgrounds are allowable and which aren't, etc.). Maybe the world is just not ready for truly open geodata ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:43:40PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: >what's the status of the license change plans? I asked just that the other day and heard that the OSMF was still trying to get an independent opinion of a laywer. SOTM would indeed be a good place to push things forward. Each new day, the whole relicensing is getting more difficult. spaetz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status
Frederik, I'm still lurking on this list - rather than demagogue the issue, I'm mainly watching the comments and trying to learn from them. It's actually very interesting to watch a community struggle with the issues in real time. In the absence of evidence - this is all very new - there's a ton of ideology-based assumptions that we all are making in this debate, both in the pro-share alike faction and here at Science Commons in favor of the PD. As I've noted here and elsewhere, my ideology is that *data integration is essential* and that leads me to my conclusions. Thus, I think that the Share Alike choice on data is a closed choice in disguise, and that PD is the natural state of data on the network. Time will provide us with the evidence we need to make data-driven decisions. In the interim there has been a fair amount of movement in other areas of geospatial that have reached out to SC to do PD work, so I'm focusing most of my energy in this space on that area. Spending my time preaching doesn't seem the best investment when I can instead work to help communities that already want to build PD-based systems... jtw ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message: 5 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:35:30 +0200 From: Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status? To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi, > > being new to the legals-list, I tried to search on the wiki I found > > this > > link: > > http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 Which is half a year old. In the mean time we have witnessed one guy from Science Commons defending their recommendation of "CC0", and SteveC going characteristically ballistic in response, and a little bit of discussion about whether and how the "contractual" aspect of the new license might work - but not a lot more than that. > > Would a more clear explanation on the alternatives and maybe an > > informal > > "poll" (through a webtool) among contributors help find feelings of > > the > > contributors and allow the Foundation to take a "wise" decision > > that is > > best community-backed (or see if further details need explanation > > to the > > community)? I am not sure. Regarding the "PD vs Share-Alike" discussion, both sides have been known to wildly exaggerate risks to a point where it could be called demagogy. If you create a poll from the statements issued in these discussions, the poll would look like this: Would you prefer OSM to a. become endlessly bogged down in legal hassles and die a slow death or b. be sucked empty by evil Google & Co. and die a slow death? Adding the question of license change to this "poll" might look like: or would you prefer to c. delete half our data and re-license the rest under a license that's not used by anybody else on the web? ... all of which is not exactly what we want people to think ;-) and this is probably the core of why we're not seeing the discussion we ought to have. Too much danger of hurting people; a typical situation encountered in politics where the politician knows that global warming is a problem but at the same time anything he can do is unpopular and will provoke lots of angry people shouting him down. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > At least that was the idea when the ODbL and OFIL licenses came along. I'm > eager to review the modifications and changes done to those licenses. ...which I hope should be at SOTM at the very latest! With particular relevance to this question, there is a new section 4.7: 4.7 "Reverse Engineering". For the avoidance of doubt, Using the whole or a Substantial part of the Data to produce a work (a "produced work"), and then re-creating the whole or a Substantial part of the Data from the produced work comes under the terms of this Licence. On a wider note, I don't intend to stand for reelection to OSMF this summer, and it would be great if one or two people with the energy to take this forward were to present themselves for election. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
Hi, > being new to the legals-list, I tried to search on the wiki I found > this > link: > http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 Which is half a year old. In the mean time we have witnessed one guy from Science Commons defending their recommendation of "CC0", and SteveC going characteristically ballistic in response, and a little bit of discussion about whether and how the "contractual" aspect of the new license might work - but not a lot more than that. > Would a more clear explanation on the alternatives and maybe an > informal > "poll" (through a webtool) among contributors help find feelings of > the > contributors and allow the Foundation to take a "wise" decision > that is > best community-backed (or see if further details need explanation > to the > community)? I am not sure. Regarding the "PD vs Share-Alike" discussion, both sides have been known to wildly exaggerate risks to a point where it could be called demagogy. If you create a poll from the statements issued in these discussions, the poll would look like this: Would you prefer OSM to a. become endlessly bogged down in legal hassles and die a slow death or b. be sucked empty by evil Google & Co. and die a slow death? Adding the question of license change to this "poll" might look like: or would you prefer to c. delete half our data and re-license the rest under a license that's not used by anybody else on the web? ... all of which is not exactly what we want people to think ;-) and this is probably the core of why we're not seeing the discussion we ought to have. Too much danger of hurting people; a typical situation encountered in politics where the politician knows that global warming is a problem but at the same time anything he can do is unpopular and will provoke lots of angry people shouting him down. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
A little naive question : if we go ODBL, what will be the license of the images produced with osm data (maps etc)? Frederic 2008/7/1, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Frederik, > > Things have not stood still although we are currently reliant on the good > will of others to help the process along. The proposed Open Database > Licence, now called the ODbL licence for short, was updated/improved by > Jordan a few weeks ago. The OSMF board have reviewed it and are very happy > but we wanted to get another legal view before we put it out for further OSM > discussion. Steve had been offered some time with a highly qualified lawyer > and currently we are waiting for the two to meet up. The process has been a > little delayed due to the unfortunate late cancellation of meetings. > > As soon as Steve reports back we will be in a position to decide whether > it's ready to take further or if it needs further work. Until this has been > done there are no plans to discuss the later steps in the required process. > > Cheers > > Andy > > >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm >>Sent: 01 July 2008 2:44 PM >>To: Licensing and other legal discussions. >>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status? >> >>Hi, >> >> what's the status of the license change plans? Have they run >>aground - I had been told a few months ago that a new release of >>Jordan's draft would be imminent. What's more, the license itself - >>about which we'll hear at SOTM - is only one little piece of the >>puzzle. The whole transition process - which, correct me if I'm >>wrong, is not scheduled to be discussed at SOTM at all - is surely as >>difficult. Will we attempt to employ legal tricks to re-license work >>of people who don't respond to our license change spam email? What >>exactly will we delete if people say "no" to the license change? (It >>has been said that even the pub on the street corner may be a work >>derived from the road data... and vice versa.) How many people have >>to say "no" for us to stop the change altogether? What would we do >>then, stick with CC-BY-SA and hope nobody notices? After a license >>change, would we keep a "parallel universe" a.k.a. "fork" of OSM >>holding the old, not-relicensed data until the wounds in the new data >>set have healed? >> >>Is it possible that this whole transition process and the associated >>questions are such a delicate matter that everybody prefers not to >>think about it, much less talk about it? That would be very well >>understandable but at the same time dangerous. It seems clear to me >>that the current license works only as long as people don't look >>closely. >> >>Need I say that, had we decided to simply go PD when last year's SOTM >>panel found that there was broad support for it, we would now be one >>happy project with all the legal hassles out of the way? It's not to >>late to see the light! >> >>Bye >>Frederik >> >>-- >>Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" >> >> >> >> >>___ >>legal-talk mailing list >>legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG. >>Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1527 - Release Date: 30/06/2008 >>6:07 PM > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
Frederik, Things have not stood still although we are currently reliant on the good will of others to help the process along. The proposed Open Database Licence, now called the ODbL licence for short, was updated/improved by Jordan a few weeks ago. The OSMF board have reviewed it and are very happy but we wanted to get another legal view before we put it out for further OSM discussion. Steve had been offered some time with a highly qualified lawyer and currently we are waiting for the two to meet up. The process has been a little delayed due to the unfortunate late cancellation of meetings. As soon as Steve reports back we will be in a position to decide whether it's ready to take further or if it needs further work. Until this has been done there are no plans to discuss the later steps in the required process. Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm >Sent: 01 July 2008 2:44 PM >To: Licensing and other legal discussions. >Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status? > >Hi, > > what's the status of the license change plans? Have they run >aground - I had been told a few months ago that a new release of >Jordan's draft would be imminent. What's more, the license itself - >about which we'll hear at SOTM - is only one little piece of the >puzzle. The whole transition process - which, correct me if I'm >wrong, is not scheduled to be discussed at SOTM at all - is surely as >difficult. Will we attempt to employ legal tricks to re-license work >of people who don't respond to our license change spam email? What >exactly will we delete if people say "no" to the license change? (It >has been said that even the pub on the street corner may be a work >derived from the road data... and vice versa.) How many people have >to say "no" for us to stop the change altogether? What would we do >then, stick with CC-BY-SA and hope nobody notices? After a license >change, would we keep a "parallel universe" a.k.a. "fork" of OSM >holding the old, not-relicensed data until the wounds in the new data >set have healed? > >Is it possible that this whole transition process and the associated >questions are such a delicate matter that everybody prefers not to >think about it, much less talk about it? That would be very well >understandable but at the same time dangerous. It seems clear to me >that the current license works only as long as people don't look >closely. > >Need I say that, had we decided to simply go PD when last year's SOTM >panel found that there was broad support for it, we would now be one >happy project with all the legal hassles out of the way? It's not to >late to see the light! > >Bye >Frederik > >-- >Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > >___ >legal-talk mailing list >legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1527 - Release Date: 30/06/2008 >6:07 PM ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >what's the status of the license change plans? Have they run > aground - I had been told a few months ago that a new release of > Jordan's draft would be imminent. What's more, the license itself - > about which we'll hear at SOTM - is only one little piece of the > puzzle. The whole transition process - which, correct me if I'm > wrong, is not scheduled to be discussed at SOTM at all - is surely as > difficult. Will we attempt to employ legal tricks to re-license work > of people who don't respond to our license change spam email? What > exactly will we delete if people say "no" to the license change? (It > has been said that even the pub on the street corner may be a work > derived from the road data... and vice versa.) How many people have > to say "no" for us to stop the change altogether? What would we do > then, stick with CC-BY-SA and hope nobody notices? After a license > change, would we keep a "parallel universe" a.k.a. "fork" of OSM > holding the old, not-relicensed data until the wounds in the new data > set have healed? > > Is it possible that this whole transition process and the associated > questions are such a delicate matter that everybody prefers not to > think about it, much less talk about it? That would be very well > understandable but at the same time dangerous. It seems clear to me > that the current license works only as long as people don't look > closely. > > Need I say that, had we decided to simply go PD when last year's SOTM > panel found that there was broad support for it, we would now be one > happy project with all the legal hassles out of the way? It's not to > late to see the light! Hi Frederik, being new to the legals-list, I tried to search on the wiki I found this link: http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 Does still sum up the situation well? What alternatives do exist? Would a more clear explanation on the alternatives and maybe an informal "poll" (through a webtool) among contributors help find feelings of the contributors and allow the Foundation to take a "wise" decision that is best community-backed (or see if further details need explanation to the community)? Kind regards, Stefan Neufeind ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License Change Status?
Hi, what's the status of the license change plans? Have they run aground - I had been told a few months ago that a new release of Jordan's draft would be imminent. What's more, the license itself - about which we'll hear at SOTM - is only one little piece of the puzzle. The whole transition process - which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not scheduled to be discussed at SOTM at all - is surely as difficult. Will we attempt to employ legal tricks to re-license work of people who don't respond to our license change spam email? What exactly will we delete if people say "no" to the license change? (It has been said that even the pub on the street corner may be a work derived from the road data... and vice versa.) How many people have to say "no" for us to stop the change altogether? What would we do then, stick with CC-BY-SA and hope nobody notices? After a license change, would we keep a "parallel universe" a.k.a. "fork" of OSM holding the old, not-relicensed data until the wounds in the new data set have healed? Is it possible that this whole transition process and the associated questions are such a delicate matter that everybody prefers not to think about it, much less talk about it? That would be very well understandable but at the same time dangerous. It seems clear to me that the current license works only as long as people don't look closely. Need I say that, had we decided to simply go PD when last year's SOTM panel found that there was broad support for it, we would now be one happy project with all the legal hassles out of the way? It's not to late to see the light! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
