Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20/07/2010, at 9:10 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote: To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data available doesn't make the data public domain. Indeed. The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material (e.g. a planet dump) on your website without requiring people to agree to a contract a violation of the ODbL?. If you aren't violating the ODbL by hosting the data without requiring contract agreement, then that is a easy way to get around the license if copyright and database right don't apply or exist. Richard Fairhurst pointed out some legal issues about this. To quote him from higher up in the thread: Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person who is not a party to a contract (a 'third party') may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if... the term purports to confer a benefit on him. It's already been discussed way back on legal-talk, but not having a choice of law clause in the ODbL (with good reason) makes enforcing the contract part of it more interesting. I don't know how you'd go trying to use that to enforce the ODbL if the neither of the first nor second parties are in England. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Query about existing users agreeing to the contributor terms
At some time in the future existing contributors will be asked to agree to the contributor terms. The tense of some of those terms concerns me: From the introductory paragraph ...rights in any Contents that You choose to submit... From paragraph 1 You agree to only add The tense of both these relates to current and future edits, so I presume these contributor terms are not intended to cover my existing edits. Can that be confirmed? David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Query over contributor terms
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: Apologies if this has been brought up before. The last line of para 1 of the contributors terms states You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents. Given the scope of the contributor terms I think this really does need to say explict here. You are giving OSMF permission to potentially change the license of any data you submit to any other free and open source license. Unless the original rights holder has placed the material in the public domain (or CC0 or whatever) then you probably wouldn't have the rights to agree to the contributor terms. It's certainly my understanding that CC-BY does not convey the rights to re-publish under any old free and open source license. However I believe LWG are currently seeking legal guidance on this point. The use of the word explicit worries me. To me that would indicate that the rights holder would have to sate something along the lines of I give David Groom permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap , though possibly a more vague permission such as I give anyone permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap, might be OK, thought arguably this is not explicit permission. Lets say I got hold of some CC-BY data, I could not incorporate that into OSM, unless I approached the author and got specific explicit permission to do so, since the permission given by CC-BY is implicit and not explicit . What worries me is the amount of data sources where permission is implicit, but not explicit David ___ 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] Query over contributor terms
- Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Query over contributor terms On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: Apologies if this has been brought up before. The last line of para 1 of the contributors terms states You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents. Given the scope of the contributor terms I think this really does need to say explict here. You are giving OSMF permission to potentially change the license of any data you submit to any other free and open source license. Unless the original rights holder has placed the material in the public domain (or CC0 or whatever) then you probably wouldn't have the rights to agree to the contributor terms. It's certainly my understanding that CC-BY does not convey the rights to re-publish under any old free and open source license. However I believe LWG are currently seeking legal guidance on this point. But my point remains, let say that the LWG do obtain legal guidance that CC-BY does convey the rights to re-publish under any old free and open source licence. My point is the contributor terms require me to get explicit permission, so even if the LWG says its Ok, I still have to go back to the original rights holder to get that permission. David The use of the word explicit worries me. To me that would indicate that the rights holder would have to sate something along the lines of I give David Groom permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap , though possibly a more vague permission such as I give anyone permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap, might be OK, thought arguably this is not explicit permission. Lets say I got hold of some CC-BY data, I could not incorporate that into OSM, unless I approached the author and got specific explicit permission to do so, since the permission given by CC-BY is implicit and not explicit . What worries me is the amount of data sources where permission is implicit, but not explicit David ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] new OSM, supposed ODbL, will be still CC-BY-SA ?!
Frederik Ramm schrieb: here's an interesting one. May I add another one? ;-) Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). In the german forum someone just found 7.b in CC-by-sa: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). And he had the opinion, that such date will never can change the licence. I answered: obey the next sentence: Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms So the way proposed would be Mapper M created a way W, gave W to project P-C under licence CC-by-sa C P-C has the right to publish it for ever, but only under C ... but P-C must not do it, P-C may die ... Mapper M may gave W also to project P-O under licence ODBL/DBCL O P-O has the right to publish it for ever, but only under O ... (or combine to other products under licences X, Y, Z, ...) that's the way proposed: P-C will die officially (OSM under CC-by-sa), might be a last-CC-planet.osm exist, but also this is not necessary to fullfill CC-by-sa ... a new P-O will be opened officially (OSM under ODBL/DBCL, casually on the same hardware as P-C ...) with all M's which agree licence O So I anwered him that there is no problem ... Mmmmh ... Really no problem? That is the state at the beginning: M1 - W1 - P-C M2 - W2 - P-C M3 - W3 - P-C just now you may say, that: M4 - W4 - P-C/P-O M5 - W5 - P-C/P-O CC-by-sa says, that there is no problem with: M2 - W2 - P-O M3 - W3 - P-O M4 - W4 - P-O M5 - W5 - P-O (assuming M1 don't want to give his data under O) But how to do this technically? W2, W3, W4, W5 mostly only exists in P-C, because a mapper seldomly saves all his ways locally ... So the technical onliest possible way is P-C - W2 - P-O P-C - W3 - P-O P-C - W4 - P-O P-C - W5 - P-O but P-C has licence C (not only for old date, for new ones double licenced, too, because infected) and all data extracted from P-C also must have licence C so P-O is still under licence C (which don't allow another licence?) so skipping licence C in P-O failed ... If I write a book and gave it under CC-by-sa to the publishing house A, than I may give it also to publishing house B under licence XY. The processs proposed now for OSM translated to books: Sorry, I don't have anymore a CD containing my book, hey B, please scan the book from A and republish it unter XY instead of CC then XY fails ... Mh... Do we have any problem? (Besides lot of other problems ...) If we state, that we can't trace data from last-CC-planet.osm to ODBL-OSM, we also cannot copy digitally from it for ODBL-OSM, because this data is CC-infected for ever ... And the mapper cannot change this by only saying yes ... We not only have to ask the mapper, if he give us a second licence, HE also has to give us HIS way and only HIS data without edits ... and so on ... I fear, that only throwing away data from mappers, who say no or nothing, is no way to skip CC ... ??? P-O is still a derivative Work of P-C under CC only!? Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
