Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
Anthony schreef: You grant everyone the right to do anything. You're effectively releasing your content into the public domain. And since OSMF are using a broad non-exclusive licence on the database, and you are arguign that for an individual to do this effectively gives up their rights altogether, surely OSMF are effectively giving up *their* rights on the database altogether? No, the ODbL is much more restrictive than a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other The concept of the ODbL is that there is a distinction between data and database (the collection of data). Consider this as a box with stuff. The OSMF is the owner of the database (box) but not the contents. The OSMF is publishing the box with its contents under the ODbL. It can only do that if the owners of the stuff that's put into the box has given OSMF the right to distribute their stuff freely. Since ODbL is an open and free license, the OSMF needs to be sure that the data that is put into the database is also free. To make the legally sure, the text you quote has been drafted by legal experts. But you as contributor will still be the sole owner of the data you've contributed. Which licence, and what are the advantages to suing in a personal capacity rather than having OSMF do so? Any license. And the advantage is that who you want to sue might be different from who the OSMF wants to sue. For example, let's say you want to sue Cloudmade... ... or you want to sue GeoFabrik or ITO or AND (to name some other sponsors of OpenStreetMap) ... If there is a need to sue, we (the Foundation) will sue. Otherwise it will work as a precedence towards other parties. Cheers, Henk Hoff ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You give up the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue. I hope its OK if I butt in here. I'm not a proper OSMF person, just an interested lawyer who reads your list. However I think your understanding of the Contributor Terms is wrong. Here I confess that I am not quite sure what we are talking about, since no-one has posted a link. I am assuming that we are all working from: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms Now *that* is very much not an assignment of copyright. The difference (and the reason why its not basically the same thing) is if you assigned copyright in your contribution, OSMF would be able to sue someone for violating that copyright. The Contributor Terms do not give them that right. What the Contributor Terms do is (i) give OSMF the usual royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence with a right to sub-licence; and (ii) grants the same licence to anyone that receives Your Contribution. (i) is relatively normal (which isn't to say its the right thing to do or doesn't have its problems). Its the kind of thing you see on google for instance and its the kind of clause I'd use as a starting point (perhaps for negotiation) when designing TC's for a crowd-sourcing site (which is something I do from time to time). It means the licensee can get on and use the content without worrying too much about it. (ii) is a bit odd - its effect appears to be to nullify any copyright in Your Contribution since anyone who copies it is surely someone who receives it. It would appear to prevent anyone suing for breach of copyright. But nothing gives OSMF a right to sue for any copyright in anything you contribute. If you had a database right in it, then OSMF are in difficulty (I'm not sure why its drafted like that - but there's probably a good reason). What OSMF _may_ get is a database right in all the bits of contribution that they get from contributors. I say _may_ because database right is not a straightforward. Its quite possible they won't have such a right, but that's another question. Database right is infringed in different ways from copyright, but if OSMF get such a right and it is infringed then they can sue, but that's because its their right, not because you assigned a right to them. Or, as Michael Meeks said: Various other methods are used to achieve the same effect [as copyright assignment]. Some common ones - are asking for a very liberal license: BSD-new, MIT/X11, or even Public Domain on the contribution, and then including it into the existing, more restrictively licensed work. The Contributor Terms appear to be just that, a very liberal licence. If some corporation makes a large donation to OSMF, and OSMF decides not to sue them for something that I consider to be unacceptable use of data I have contributed, there's nothing I can do. I've given them (and everyone else Absolutely right, although OSMF might not be able to sue either. You can't sue. in the world) a perpetual, irrevocable license to do anything. In the mean time, if that corporation wants to sue *me*, for using its data plus some copyrightable improvements, it's free to do so. I can't even counter-sue as a defense. That's right. If you give away something you can't complain how other people use it. That's completely unacceptable to me. YMMV. What would be acceptable? It looks to me like the intention of the Contributor Terms is much nearer to what you want because clause 3 restricts what kinds of things OSMF is allowed to do when it sub-licenses your data to other organisations. In particular OSMF would not be able to sublicence to %evil_organisation unless it was covered by one of the open source licenses listed (or one selected by members - which would have to be free and open) which would probably prevent them suing you. But of course as it stands that organisation doesn't need OSMF's licence for your data, since you have already given that to everyone. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: What OSMF _may_ get is a database right in all the bits of contribution that they get from contributors. I say _may_ because database right is not a straightforward. Its quite possible they won't have such a right, but that's another question. They also may get contract rights under the ODbL. I say may because the enforceability of a browse-wrap license is not straightforward. That's completely unacceptable to me. YMMV. What would be acceptable? The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: What would be acceptable? The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone under CC-BY-SA. which ranges from being basically PD in some jurisdictions to being a BY-SA license in others. so what would be acceptable *and* internationally applicable? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: What would be acceptable? The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone under CC-BY-SA. which ranges from being basically PD in some jurisdictions to being a BY-SA license in others. so what would be acceptable *and* internationally applicable? If by internationally applicable you mean having roughly the same effect in all jurisdictions, the only thing I can think of that would be internationally applicable would be CC0. Even that would have some differences in different jurisdictions, though, as some jurisdictions outright contradict each other (in some jurisdictions you can't enforce moral rights, in other jurisdictions you can't waive them). I suppose CC0 would be acceptable, if everyone had to agree to it, including the OSMF itself. But I'd prefer copyleft. I really don't want people taking my contributions, adding to them, and then legally restricting me from being able to use them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: What would be acceptable? The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone under CC-BY-SA. which ranges from being basically PD in some jurisdictions to being a BY-SA license in others. so what would be acceptable *and* internationally applicable? If by internationally applicable you mean having roughly the same effect in all jurisdictions, the only thing I can think of that would be internationally applicable would be CC0. Although, for the most part, CC-BY-SA does have roughly the same effect in all jurisdictions. You can do whatever you want with the geodata, so long as you don't legally restrict others from using the geodata you add. In jurisdictions where geodata is protected, CC-BY-SA ensures that any derivative works are under CC-BY-SA. In jurisdictions where geodata isn't protected, any geodata which is added to the work can't be legally restricted from reuse anyway. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
2010/1/5 Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com: 2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You give up the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue. ... Now *that* is very much not an assignment of copyright. The difference (and the reason why its not basically the same thing) is if you assigned copyright in your contribution, OSMF would be able to sue someone for violating that copyright. Yes, it's not an assignment of copyright and OSMF won't be able to sue for violation of copyright, it will only be able to sue for violation of its database rights -- the situation is still analogous to copyright assignment. Let's for simplicity assume there is no copyright on our data at all an all references to copyright in this thread are a shorthand to whatever rights the licensor has to the database and / or the data, and maybe we can stop arguing about this, I think we have agreed in a different thread that the new license + contributor terms is much the spirit of the CC-by-SA + copyright assignment, taken and applied to data. As such the Michael Meeks' text is very relevant. Personally I prefer individual contributors to be able to proect the database's license against violators, I'm only not sure if that can be implemented really. Beside the reasons, against that copyright assignment, that others have mentioned (take overs of the OSMF, etc), this model has worked really well for software for many years, companies were apparently not afraid to switch to free software and at the same time infringements have been successfully fought in court, by the individual authors (programmers) with help of organisations. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:02 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/1/5 Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com: 2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You give up the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue. ... Now *that* is very much not an assignment of copyright. The difference (and the reason why its not basically the same thing) is if you assigned copyright in your contribution, OSMF would be able to sue someone for violating that copyright. Yes, it's not an assignment of copyright and OSMF won't be able to sue for violation of copyright, it will only be able to sue for violation of its database rights -- the situation is still analogous to copyright assignment. Let's for simplicity assume there is no copyright on our data at all an all references to copyright in this thread are a shorthand to whatever rights the licensor has to the database and / or the data, and maybe we can stop arguing about this, Thank you. That's exactly what I was getting at. Obviously the OSMF can't sue someone else for violating my copyright. That's the not copyright assignment. As for the basically the same thing, that's the part where I said you give up the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue. You'll notice I didn't say sue for copyright infringment, I said sue. That was very much intentional. I also followed it up with a quote from Meeks, which I'll annotate in case someone didn't get it the first time: Various other methods are used to achieve the same effect [as copyright assignment]. Some common ones - are asking for a very liberal license: BSD-new, MIT/X11, or even Public Domain [You hereby grant...any party...a...license to do any act that is restricted by copyright] on the contribution, and then including it into the existing, more restrictively licensed work [the ODbL]. I think we have agreed in a different thread that the new license + contributor terms is much the spirit of the CC-by-SA + copyright assignment, taken and applied to data. I'd say it's more like the LGPL than CC-BY-SA. It has the equivalent of a requirement to distribute source along with binaries (something in the LGPL but not in CC-BY-SA), and the copyleft does not apply to produced works (roughly analogous to the Lesser in the Lesser GPL, and not something present in CC-BY-SA). At least in spirit/intent. Legally speaking, the LGPL, and to a lesser extent, CC-BY-SA, have been much more heavily scrutinized by the legal community, have withstood the test of time, are from a well-respected and well-known organization, and have a fairly well-accepted interpretation. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
