Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com: Indeed. Consider what you would say if a lawyer looked at a program and said Why do we need all this codese? Speaking as a lawyer - albeit one who hasn't been on this list nearly long enough to have an opinion, I'm mostly just trying to learn where OSM are coming from - my reaction to the terms of use is yuk. I'm not sure this it the place to discuss it and whether my views are at all interesting, but I do draft (and more often litigate) contracts like this. Main problem (as I see it) is that its drafted from a US point of view, but purports to be governed by English law. I'm not quite sure how that will work out in practice or what the goal is. Is it clear that OSM is only used in the US and England? If not, why is (only) US law being mentioned when many different legal systems will come into play? If English law is the governing law, then that, surely is the one to go with, subject to having an eye to all other relevant jurisdictions. I work a lot with clients who want to be reasonably legal safe but want contracts to be short and simple and are prepared to take the risk that I haven't put in an extra 30 pages of boilerplate to cover an obscure risk, so that kind of drafting is entirely possible. But its a matter entirely for the client. I'd be happy to write/rewrite this kind of thing for you or give my input, but, as I said, I'm an OSM novice and really don't know what you are after. From an English law point of view, all caps paragraphs should be removed of course 8-). There's a bunch of stuff I'd rewrite, but its not up to me. All the best. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: The licence should not try to impose additional restrictions on people beyond their own country's copyright law (and other applicable laws such as database right). In which case OSM becomes public domain. Are you saying that the OSM data, currently distributable under the CC-BY-SA licence, is in the public domain now? What about, for example, Ordnance Survey maps from before the database right was introduced, and where the buyer has not agreed to any contract or EULA? I'm repeating myself, I'm afraid, but you can take two approaches with data. You can say it's all PD. Or you can attempt to arm yourself to the teeth by deploying whatever tools are available in your jurisdiction: copyright, database right and contract. There is no middle ground. A weaker approach (say, a copyright-only licence like CC-BY-SA) won't be applicable in all countries, therefore in some places our data will be freely copiable. This is exactly my point. Copyright law is a trade-off giving limited exclusion rights to copyright holders in order to benefit the public. It is not absolute, so for example, copyrights expire after a certain time period. The scope of copyright in a particular country is decided by that country's legislature. If a certain country decides that maps are freely copyable, then that is a decision for their parliament to take and be answerable to their own voters. I think it is unethical to try to override that, even if software companies do it. (This is certainly an example where what is done in the world of software is not appropriate for free data.) And if in some places our data is freely copyable, so what? It does no harm to anyone outside those countries. Popeye is in the public domain in Europe but that does not mean you can freely import Popeye comics from Europe to the US. I think that 'arming yourself' with all the legal weapons possible is quite the wrong metaphor. The project is not about suing wrongdoers but about making free map data as widely available as possible. The settled will [1] of the OSM community is that we want a share-alike licence, Which we have. If you believe that CC-BY-SA is not a share-alike licence, or that somehow it does not work when applied to map data, then let's see the evidence. That isn't the case for factual data. If you don't impose additional restrictions over and above statute law, then there will be some countries in which your data is unprotected, and it will leak out from there. Are you really saying it is possible to launder the OSM data by taking it to Bogoland, where is is 'unprotected', and then copying it and sending it back to Europe, the US or other developed country? If so then why don't you just do that in order to accomplish the relicensing? I may be exaggerating above but I just don't see what the problem is. It seems like legalistic speculation and FUD rather than a real scenario. If anyone can point to a case where this has already happened then I'll believe it - and start investigating how existing map data can be subjected to the same treatment... Nonetheless if the OSM community wants a share-alike license, it has to use this sort of language. Everyone who has contributed to OSM so far has done so under CC-BY-SA. I don't see where these large numbers of people are coming from who are unhappy with the existing share-alike terms and pushing for something more onerous. I kind of think it should be compulsory for anyone posting to legal-talk to demonstrate that they have read, and understood, Rural vs Feist and Mason vs Montgomery. I will read those (anyone got a link?). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: the personal use only stuff comes into the terms of service. you don't need to agree - it's simply a statement by OSMF that the site is intended for personal use and that any non-personal use of the site may result in service being withdrawn. Hmm. I guess not being a lawyer I misunderstood. But it hardly seems necessary to say such a thing - it's not as if OSMF has agreed to provide uninterrupted service in the first place, or, indeed, that anyone using the site for personal use is guaranteed that the site will work. For us non-lawyers, it would clarify things to have a paragraph at the top saying 'these terms of service are not something you need to agree to, they are simply a statement by the OSMF of how we will try to run our website' would solve the problem. to make this very, very clear: we're not proposing the privacy policy and terms of service because we're evil, or we're excited by long and boring legal documents or even that we're anticipating a clear threat. we're doing it **because our lawyer is recommending it**. I do think that lawyers can get a bit out of control if you don't keep them on a short leash, but do whatever you have to, I guess. Just make sure that site visitors aren't caught in the crossfire, and do not end up having to agree (explicitly or implicitly) to waive some of their rights. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
Hello to all OSM users, we're planning on creating printed materials which will include OSM maps. Does the new license allow us to do so? What kind of disclaimer should be used in print media? Thank you. George. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Ulf Möller wrote: It doesn't. It's just that during a review of the proposed license, a lawyer pointed out that it is good practice to have terms of use for the website. That recommendation would still stand if we chose not to change the license. I can't really comprehend how terms and conditions for use of a website mean anything in the big real world. I'm over 50 years old, have university degrees and post graduate qualifications; i teach undergraduates and postgraduates in my field. However, I'm not stuck in academic clouds and putting terms and conditions on a website is bizarre. I go to a website, i read, i look at pictures. I know quite well that the contents are either copy left or copyright and i should check before i copy anything. Terms and conditions for use of a website - do we put terms and conditions on advertising posters governing who can read them? It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for the public to read. Put the lawyer back in the cage. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Francis Davey wrote: Put the lawyer back in the cage. Be nice 8-). This isn't (as far as I can see) about lawyers being unreasonable. I just get the impression that some people have had so much to do with lawyers while trying to get the database licence organised that they have lost sight of reality. Lawyers advise. Philosophers think. Don't mix the roles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
Hello Frederik, thanks for the quick reply. One more quick question, just to be sure: how should we handle printing media in CC-BY-SA terms? Is printing ©OpenStreetMap - CC-BY-SA on the map enough to ensure I'm complying with current OSM license? Thanks. George. On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, George Ionescu wrote: we're planning on creating printed materials which will include OSM maps. Does the new license allow us to do so? Yes but anything you do before the new license is implemented, which may still be half a year away for all we know, is governed by the old CC-BY-SA. Bye Frederik ___ 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] Contributor Terms
Hi, Brendan Barrett wrote: What happens if someone, with malicious intent, deletes lots of data or uploads things that cause trouble (e.g. upload Teleatlas data, then tip off Teleatlas to make trouble). Do we reserve the right to sue them for damages, and if so, would this agreement be the place to hint at that? Would they not be in breach of condition 1: Yes; let me change the example and ask whether we reserve the right to sue someone who uploads 100.000km of random motorways across Europe every day. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
Hi, George Ionescu wrote: One more quick question, just to be sure: how should we handle printing media in CC-BY-SA terms? Is printing ©OpenStreetMap - CC-BY-SA on the map enough to ensure I'm complying with current OSM license? If you have enough room then we prefer the URLs for OSM and CC written out. There is some info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F However if your space is limited, abbreviations are allowed as the license only requires attribution adequate to the medium or so. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the content. (Licence X being whatever licence OSM is using... so if another organization releases data under CC-BY-SA or under ODbL or whatever, clearly it must be permitted to add that to OSM. If not, something is a bit wrong.) Sections 2 and 3 seem a bit too much of a blank cheque to the OSM Foundation. If we truly believe in share-alike, then is it not enough for contributors to agree to license their work under Licence X, and then the OSMF will be able to redistribute it? If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the content. (Licence X being whatever licence OSM is using... so if another organization releases data under CC-BY-SA or under ODbL or whatever, clearly it must be permitted to add that to OSM. If not, something is a bit wrong.) ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings attached for the symbolic price of $1. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Many websites have terms and conditions (eg amazon and tesco) and they do so because using those sites goes beyond just having a browse but involves rather more interaction (including the handing over of money). In the case of OSM things don't go that far (importantly no money changes hands) but users of the site can add content to it. Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. That may be true, but if I want to attach a complex contractual obligation on anyone who uses the data (which is what the new open data licence will do) then I need to make sure that you know you are agreeing to it. I think if it's necessary to undertake a complex contractual obligation just to look at some map data, then it is no longer free map data. But if we assume that the goal of OSM is now 'provide legally encumbered map data under EULA' for the sake of this discussion... There's a difference between that and a pure copyright licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material without a licence (or some exception holding) so I didn't know the terms of the licence won't help someone who wants to steal the data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have to bring its terms to their attention. Yes, and they have to agree to it (just seeing it on a web page is not enough), and although IANAL, I think there must be some consideration, for example a monetary payment. It's not clear that putting up an intimidating screenful of legal boilerplate accomplishes anything. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. Yes and as is I hope clear from what I have written (although your use of the word but suggests possibly not) I do not believe you do. I am trying (though unsuccessfully) to make helpful remarks, but they don't seem to be being helpful. I think if it's necessary to undertake a complex contractual obligation just to look at some map data, then it is no longer free map data. But if we assume That is, as I understand it, what the new data licence does attempt to achieve - but I could have misunderstood this. that the goal of OSM is now 'provide legally encumbered map data under EULA' for the sake of this discussion... There's a difference between that and a pure copyright licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material without a licence (or some exception holding) so I didn't know the terms of the licence won't help someone who wants to steal the data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have to bring its terms to their attention. Yes, and they have to agree to it (just seeing it on a web page is not enough), Sure, its a necessary but not sufficient condition. and although IANAL, I think there must be some consideration, for example a monetary payment. It's not clear that putting up an intimidating screenful There has to be consideration, but if I say to you - if you want to use my data you must agree to abide by these contractual terms - then there will be consideration: you get the use of the data, and I get whatever I get out of the terms and conditions (eg you agreement to do or not to do certain things). Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. NB: this is all in English law terms, other systems of contract law work differently. of legal boilerplate accomplishes anything. Oh yes it does: it can annoy and intimidate people. It is what some people want to do. Not, I suspect, what OSM wants to do which is why (amongst other things) you shouldn't use ALL CAPS paragraphs unless you want people to feel shouted at. What I think you mean is that OSM shouldn't use the suggested terms of use (I assume that's the screenful of legal boilerplate), I probably agree (that's why I said yuk earlier in the discussion) but the starting point is not the terms of use, its what are you trying to do with terms of use? What risks are you trying to avoid and/or what advantages are you hoping to achieve? Once you have that thought through, then its pointful to look at whether you need any form of legal wording on your site and, if so, what it should be. There's a lot more to such things than merely trying to bind visitors to a contract. For example if you process personal data then as a matter of good practice you should have a clear explanation of what you are going to do with it (and as a matter of law in the EU you should inform the data subjects you are doing so). I suspect OSM does need such a thing. A statement can amount to a warning or disclaimer that does not create contractual relations but puts the recipient on sufficient notice to be aware that there are dangers or risks in using a site in a certain way and so as to limit the site owner's liability - I cannot see any need for such a thing with OSM. Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really welcome here, so I'll shut up again. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? My reading until now was that because ODbL gives the original licensor super cow powers (namely of determining which other licenses are deemed compatible), it must be avoided to pass on these super cow powers to evil people like me (Fred sets up free world database, licenses it ODbL with himself at the license root, imports full OSM database without asking anyone, then decrees under section 4.4.e that for his project, ODbL is compatible with PD, and this makes the OSM data PD.) But please let someone from the license working group say something to this before I confuse everyone. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. Sh, don't say that too loud, it has taken us PD advocates a lot of work to sneak that bit in! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. Yes and as is I hope clear from what I have written (although your use of the word but suggests possibly not) I do not believe you do. Cool, so we agree on this point. Sorry, I don't mean to flame, I misread the position you were taking. There has to be consideration, but if I say to you - if you want to use my data you must agree to abide by these contractual terms - then there will be consideration: you get the use of the data, Hmm, I think I would argue that 'use of the data' is no consideration at all since I would have been able to use it anyway even without agreeing to the terms. For example if I publish a copy of the King James Bible with a 'contract' at the front, and the consideration for this contract is being allowed to copy the text, clearly this isn't a valid contract since the supposed consideration is really nothing at all - the text is in the public domain anyway. Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. But in such cases, I would suggest, a contractual agreement is not necessary anyway. The copyright holder can sue me for making copies of a book whether or not I agreed to that when I bought it. If you don't have a licence for the necessary copyright or database rights then you are not allowed to distribute the data. There is no need for any contract. That is why I think that imposing an EULA or terms and conditions on people is unnecessary and ineffective. Either the database right exists or it doesn't; if it does then no contract is needed to enforce it; and if it doesn't then no contract has been agreed to because there is no consideration. As a lawyer does that make any sense, or is there some flaw in the above? Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. I wonder how much case law there is for 'contracts' which are some text displayed on a website, which has not had any scope for negotiation, and where the supposed consideration is granting you 'permission' for something you most likely had the right to do anyway... I doubt many such cases get to court. What I think you mean is that OSM shouldn't use the suggested terms of use (I assume that's the screenful of legal boilerplate), I probably agree (that's why I said yuk earlier in the discussion) but the starting point is not the terms of use, its what are you trying to do with terms of use? What risks are you trying to avoid and/or what advantages are you hoping to achieve? Yes, quite... so far 'good practice' has been the reason given, which doesn't really satisfy me and others that the benefits outweigh the costs. There's a lot more to such things than merely trying to bind visitors to a contract. For example if you process personal data then as a matter of good practice you should have a clear explanation of what you are going to do with it (and as a matter of law in the EU you should inform the data subjects you are doing so). I suspect OSM does need such a thing. Agreed. Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really welcome here, so I'll shut up again. I am sorry about the tone of my previous message - I would like to hear more of your thoughts. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: Hmm, I think I would argue that 'use of the data' is no consideration at all since I would have been able to use it anyway even without agreeing to the terms. For example if I publish a copy of the King James Bible with a 'contract' at the front, and the consideration for this contract is being allowed to copy the text, clearly this isn't a valid contract since the supposed consideration is really nothing at all - the text is in the public domain anyway. Actually its Crown Copyright, but its unusual to see people bothering to obtain licences for it (though years ago we did make the effort to get a licence for an online version with no difficulty). So, there's an interesting point here which is that, you could, in principle, only sell to people who agreed not to copy it. They would be bound by that agreement, though their successors in title and third parties would not be. Having such a contract in the front of the book is more difficult because its harder to see how and why a purchaser of the book would be bound by it, unless they had had its terms drawn to their attention before purchase. This is the classic shrinkwrap question as someone else remarked. Legal publishers do this by the way. I have several books which have more or less ludicrous attempts to prevent my exercising my dominion over books I have bought. Just because you say it, doesn't make it binding, not because of want of consideration but because its not incorporated into the contract. The worst example I have ever seen was in a youth hostel in Pembrokeshire. In the kitchen was a notice which said that the YHA and its employees were not liable for any personal injury or death whether caused by their negligence or otherwise. There is so much wrong about such a statement I wouldn't know where to begin. Some website TC's try to do the same kind of thing. Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have consideration because I don't have to let you do that (although there's a bunch of unresolved legal issues with the internet there too). But in such cases, I would suggest, a contractual agreement is not necessary anyway. The copyright holder can sue me for making copies of a book whether or not I agreed to that when I bought it. If you don't have a licence for the necessary copyright or database rights then you are not allowed to distribute the data. There is no need for any contract. Yes, that's right too. You don't need to obtain a contract to enforce rights you already have. That is why I think that imposing an EULA or terms and conditions on people is unnecessary and ineffective. Either the database right exists or it doesn't; if it does then no contract is needed to enforce it; and if it doesn't then no contract has been agreed to because there is no consideration. The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using intellectual property law. As a lawyer does that make any sense, or is there some flaw in the above? Apart from the small matter of consideration, no. Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. I wonder how much case law there is for 'contracts' which are some text displayed on a website, which has not had any scope for negotiation, and where the supposed consideration is granting you 'permission' for something you most likely had the right to do anyway... I doubt many such cases get to court. In respect of text on websites: In the UK I suspect there are more than you think, but they tend to happen at the rather knock-about stage in the county court and so they don't get reported and we don't hear about them. in the US there are *lots* and *lots* of them reported. But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring in other legal considerations. Yes, quite... so far 'good practice' has been the reason given, which doesn't really satisfy me and others that the benefits outweigh the costs. OK. As I said, google maps don't have a TC imposed before use - what would be useful is to identify what exactly are the problems that one is seeking to deal with before going straight to code. Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really welcome here, so I'll shut up again. I am sorry about the tone of my previous message - I would like to hear more of your thoughts. Thanks. -- Francis Davey
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Ed Avis wrote: ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? My reading until now was that because ODbL gives the original licensor super cow powers (namely of determining which other licenses are deemed compatible), everyone has the super cow powers, but they're cascaded. e.g: if OSMF is the original licensor and i want to license some derived database under a different license i have to ask OSMF. if you license it from me and want to distribute your derived version, then you have to ask me *and* OSMF. however, i can delegate my super cow powers to a 3rd party (e.g: OSMF) to make my life easier. it must be avoided to pass on these super cow powers to evil people like me (Fred sets up free world database, licenses it ODbL with himself at the license root, imports full OSM database without asking anyone, then decrees under section 4.4.e that for his project, ODbL is compatible with PD, and this makes the OSM data PD.) indeed. this is why the upstream compatibility decision is necessary. much as i'd *love* to have a PD-OSM (not the one with specially named zip files on an FTP server, but just OSM in the public domain), there were many in the community who were against PD/BSD style licenses. hence, why ODbL is an SA/GPL style license. But please let someone from the license working group say something to this before I confuse everyone. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. Sh, don't say that too loud, it has taken us PD advocates a lot of work to sneak that bit in! no, that's not what it says at all. it says OSMF can grant any license they want as long as it is free and open **and approved by a vote of active contributors**. if you really want PD, or you really don't want PD: join OSMF, keep your email up-to-date and continue mapping! then your voice will be heard (twice). cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Ed Avis wrote: Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: I kind of think it should be compulsory for anyone posting to legal-talk to demonstrate that they have read, and understood, Rural vs Feist and Mason vs Montgomery. I will read those (anyone got a link?). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Case_law http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law Bear in mind also that Creative Commons themselves have said several times that CC-BY-SA is not suitable for OSM. For example, In the United States, data will be protected by copyright only if they express creativity. Some databases will satisfy this condition, such as a database containing poetry or a wiki containing prose. Many databases, however, contain factual information that may have taken a great deal of effort to gather, such as the results of a series of complicated and creative experiments. Nonetheless, that information is not protected by copyright and cannot be licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons license. And so on and so forth. That's from http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases . That page is actually deprecated because CC now recommend, effectively, that data should be public domain. Given that CC, to me, has always appeared to have an unspoken policy of favouring share-alike as the default recommendation, that's pretty telling. It's a huge subject, one with lots of shades of grey and very little black-and-white, and one that has been discussed very, very extensively here, on various blogs and elsewhere in the last few years. But if you can't summon the energy to read all that, and I wouldn't blame you, do at least read Charlotte Waelde's paper and the key US cases (Rural vs Feist, Mason vs Montgomery). For what it's worth, my interpretation at present is that a simple OSM map of a housing estate, such as http://osm.org/go/euwtbOAo-- , is not at all copyrightable in the US (the most liberal jurisdiction). It's a simple collection of facts - street names and geometries - arranged in an uncreative fashion, and Rural vs Feist tells us that this doesn't merit copyright. Therefore CC-BY-SA will not protect it. (And given that this level of detail is on a par with the major commercial mapping sites, it's definitely something of value.) Something more intensively mapped, such as http://osm.org/go/eutDzIjd-- , may perhaps attract copyright protection for the database structure - which, in OSM, is principally the tagging system. It could go either way for the database contents, which is still pretty uncreative _given_ that structure, but could be argued to involve careful assessment of sources and so on (Mason vs Montgomery). But as is traditional at this point, I should point out that I am not a... you know the rest. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Privacy-and-Terms-tp24185975p24325453.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have consideration because I don't have to let you do that Good point. So if there is a contract you must agree to before downloading the data, the consideration can be that you received a copy of the data. not really. the ODbL is enforceable through IPR alone. there is no need to have people agree to *view* the data. the license (or more probably a link to it) will be present in all downloaded data, similar to the LICENSE file in GPL software. Much better IMHO to rely on copyright law and other laws such as database right, which apply whether you have signed a contract or not. If these laws do not exist in a particular country, well, that's a choice for the citizens of that country. the ODbL does. perhaps you should read it? The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using intellectual property law. Yes, that's exactly why I for one dislike it. And the side-effects, such as banning anonymous downloads of the data set (or indeed downloads by minors, who might not be bound by any purported contract) are unpleasant too. it doesn't ban anonymouse downloads. But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring in other legal considerations. Yes... I think the proposed ODbL has all three question marks over its validity as a contract. You have dealt with one of them, consideration, by pointing out that merely getting a copy of the data can be consideration - which is fine, as long as nobody somehow gets a copy other than from the OSM website... all forms of license suffer from this, including common opensource licenses like GPL, etc... even CC-BY-SA. and, as we all know, GPL and CC-BY-SA are ineffectual for databases. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
No, i can't :( I was hoping that there is someone who could. Still hoping .. Sorry Martin Richard Fairhurst wrote: Martin wrote: I would like to know if it is allowed to trace over the maps from: http://www.ml-datos.com/4/ficheros/mapas/marruecos/IGN%201-250.000/ Can you point us at a licence page, please? cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
Hi Elizabeth Thanks for analysis! This map series are more reliable than the others and would be very valuable. They belong to the Institute Geographique Nationale from morocco and could be public domain, but i don't know. Martin Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Martin wrote: I would like to know if it is allowed to trace over the maps from: http://www.ml-datos.com/4/ficheros/mapas/marruecos/IGN%201-250.000/ whoever scanned the maps left off the dates and cartographer details. I checked two, and there seemed to something missing off the very bottom of the sheet in each case. Then I checked another map on the site and found a date of 2001 on it, so there is no guarantee they are old maps out of copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
I already made a changeset based on that before i realised the unknown state of copyright: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1712798 How to remove that? Thanks Martin Martin wrote: Hi I would like to know if it is allowed to trace over the maps from: http://www.ml-datos.com/4/ficheros/mapas/marruecos/IGN%201-250.000/ I already know that it is allowed for: http://www.madmappers.com/mapset.php?MS=182 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/north_africa/ since they are listed in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#Old_maps_found_elsewhere_on_the_web Thanks Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
El Viernes, 3 de Julio de 2009, Martin escribió: They belong to the Institute Geographique Nationale from morocco and could be public domain, but i don't know. No, no, no. They are indeed from the Institute Geographique Nationale, but not from Morocco. From France. See www.ign.fr and https://www.stanfords.co.uk/stock/africa-ign-1100-topographic-maps-of-nw-africa/ The spanish Instituto Geográfico Nacional claims copyright over old topo maps (dating back to 1890 or so). I wouldn't be surprised if the french IGN would do the same. I think you should ask the french IGN about the issue. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] copyright for IGN maps from morocco
So i will dig through http://www.ign.fr/page.do?externalRef=instit.document.cms.id.mentionsLegales and probably ask them about. Thanks Martin Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Viernes, 3 de Julio de 2009, Martin escribió: They belong to the Institute Geographique Nationale from morocco and could be public domain, but i don't know. No, no, no. They are indeed from the Institute Geographique Nationale, but not from Morocco. From France. See www.ign.fr and https://www.stanfords.co.uk/stock/africa-ign-1100-topographic-maps-of-nw-africa/ The spanish Instituto Geográfico Nacional claims copyright over old topo maps (dating back to 1890 or so). I wouldn't be surprised if the french IGN would do the same. I think you should ask the french IGN about the issue. Cheers, ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Ed Avis schrieb: If it is not possible to take one ODbL-licensed work, and combine it with another ODbL-licensed work to make a third ODbL-licensed work, then either the ODbL is even worse than it first appears, or the proposed OSM implementation of it is flawed. The ODbL certainly allows that. However if individual submissions to OSM were licensed under ODbL then OSM would be locked in to that license. I think ODbL is a good license for OSM, but I'm not sure it will remain the best possible license forever, so I think being able to change the license is important. Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings attached for the symbolic price of $1. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. The community vote makes sure the OSMF can't do that: or another free and open license chosen by a vote of the OSM Foundation membership and approved by a vote of active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: if it's in the public domain then you already have permission from the copyright holder. also, having permission from the rights holder to distribute under License X is the same thing as having permission from the rights holder to submit the content, no? Well, not quite; if it's truly in the public domain then there is no copyright holder, so you do not have permission, nor do you need it. And permission to to distribute under licence X does not imply permission to add the data to OSM where it will be redistributed under 'free and open' licence Y subject to a vote some time in the future, so we must decide whether to allow this case. (IMHO, if OSM chooses the ODbL but ends up in the position of rejecting third party contributions which are themselves licensed under the ODbL, something is wrong with the licensing policy.) If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. because we've heard it time and time again that people don't want to do copyright assignment. My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future), but it is better to call a spade a spade. Still, if there is a strong view that copyright assignment is unacceptable but something that amounts to basically the same thing expressed with more words is fine, then I suppose we can go with that. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
