Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org and establish a contract. Assuming the copyright (or database right) applies in that jurisdiction. In the absence of those, there are no rights to reserve. Which is where contract law comes in (in theory). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org and establish a contract. Assuming the copyright (or database right) applies in that jurisdiction. In the absence of those, there are no rights to reserve. Which is where contract law comes in (in theory). If you've been following this thread, the whole point is that *contract law won't work in the absence of copyright law or database right*. The contract is only binding on OSM users, if anyone. It doesn't bind anyone who finds the database on a bus (or, more likely, downloads it through a P2P filesharing service). Now's the cue for SteveC to say 1) but commercial providers use contract law; and 2) I've got a lawyer who doesn't like you and lawyers are never wrong. Well, 1) commercial providers don't make it easy to download the entire database (or they make it so incredibly expensive that there are very few people to police); furthermore, it's likely that they use some sort of watermarking on those few high profile users who *do* have access to the entire database; a few mistakes unique to the individual can catch them if they leak the data, and these are likely to be high net worth corporations who can be sued for enormous sums for the leak; none of this works with OSM; and 2) feel free to have them explain in detail what's wrong with this analysis. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org and establish a contract. Assuming the copyright (or database right) applies in that jurisdiction. In the absence of those, there are no rights to reserve. Which is where contract law comes in (in theory). If you've been following this thread, the whole point is that *contract law won't work in the absence of copyright law or database right*. The contract is only binding on OSM users, if anyone. It doesn't bind anyone who finds the database on a bus (or, more likely, downloads it through a P2P filesharing service). Now's the cue for SteveC to say 1) but commercial providers use contract law; and 2) I've got a lawyer who doesn't like you and lawyers are never wrong. Well, 1) commercial providers don't make it easy to download the entire database (or they make it so incredibly expensive that there are very few people to police); furthermore, it's likely that they use some sort of watermarking on those few high profile users who *do* have access to the entire database; a few mistakes unique to the individual can catch them if they leak the data, and these are likely to be high net worth corporations who can be sued for enormous sums for the leak; none of this works with OSM; and 2) feel free to have them explain in detail what's wrong with this analysis. I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or the other way around. I pick the other way around. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). Here's what that FAQ says: What's wrong with the current licence? OSM currently uses the Creative Commons Share-Alike/Attribution 2.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/licence, or CC-BY-SA for short. The main problems that have come to light over time are: - The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data. - The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors. - Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) I tend to agree with Anthony that ODbL does very little to solve these problems. And at the same time it introduces a whole range of new problems. There would certainly be great difficulties in practical use and many many misunderstandings about what it says. Copyright is a principle that is well understood in most parts of the world. When you add to that Database rights which are not well understood even in Europe and contact law which is notoriously complex and varies greatly across juristdictions, you have a very impractical mess on your hands - good luck with that. This medicine is much worse than the illness it is trying to cure. 80n ___ 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 25 July 2010 00:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor How does 'the simplest explanation is usually the correct one' apply here? the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong I'd be surprised if all those lawyers came up with the exact same interpretations/conclusions... You get 10 people of any profession in a room you usually get 10 different outcomes... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or the other way around. I pick the other way around. Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#What.27s_wrong_with_the_current_licence.3F The main problems that have come to light over time are: * The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data. ODbL protects against the database right and against contract law. * The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors. The ODbL handles attribution differently from BY-SA 2.0 , allowing BY-SA 2.5-style indirect or project attribution. * Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that mash-ups are not derivative works. ;-) So the ODbL *does* attempt to address the issues that have been identified with BY-SA for OSM. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or the other way around. I pick the other way around. Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#What.27s_wrong_with_the_current_licence.3F The main problems that have come to light over time are: * The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data. ODbL protects against the database right and against contract law. How? * The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors. The ODbL handles attribution differently from BY-SA 2.0 , allowing BY-SA 2.5-style indirect or project attribution. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work [...] under [...] a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial. * Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that mash-ups are not derivative works. ;-) Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. So the ODbL *does* attempt to address the issues that have been identified with BY-SA for OSM. I never said it didn't *try*. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: * Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that mash-ups are not derivative works. ;-) Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. Furthermore, the idea of Produced Works doesn't work. As I've asked several times now, and never gotten a response, what stops someone from taking a Produced Work released under CC-BY and extracting the data back out of the Produced Work, thereby obtaining the data under CC-BY. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 24/07/10 16:49, SteveC wrote: Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Steve That's ad hominem tu quoque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: How? By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves. Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial. Relicencing derivative works is trivial. Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change of attribution isn't. There are major institutional contributions to OSM that might not be able to be re-attributed without great effort. And some people (mistakenly) regard that attribution as a right. So changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicencing. Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention copyright as BY is a copyright licence.) I think his point is about ODBL and not extending to produced work, what's to stop the work from being relicensed under the same license as the produced work... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: How? By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves. I don't follow. Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial. Relicencing derivative works is trivial. Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change of attribution isn't. There are major institutional contributions to OSM that might not be able to be re-attributed without great effort. And some people (mistakenly) regard that attribution as a right. So changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicencing. Changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicensing under the ODbL? I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't follow. Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to. But that just doesn't make any logical sense. If a mash-up isn't a derivative work, then the database might as well be PD (or CC-BY). If produced works aren't protected, then the data isn't protected, because the data is *contained within* the produced works. On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:17 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: As I've asked several times now, and never gotten a response, what stops someone from taking a Produced Work released under CC-BY and extracting the data back out of the Produced Work, thereby obtaining the data under CC-BY. Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention copyright as BY is a copyright licence.) If that DVD were released under ODbL, and the copy were released (legally) under CC-BY, you might have a point. BY-SA is a more interesting case as the derivative work must also be covered by BY-SA. Indeed. What's the position of the OSMF and/or the LWG on this one? Can CC-BY-SA data be combined with ODbL data to create a produced work? Or are proprietary produced works allowed, but non-ODbL copylefted produced works disallowed? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention copyright as BY is a copyright licence.) I think his point is about ODBL and not extending to produced work, what's to stop the work from being relicensed under the same license as the produced work... I think Rob's assertion is that the ODbL *does* extend to the produced work. That the produced work is still ODbL, there's just an exception from the creator of the produced work to their requirement to provide the part of the data which is not derived from the ODbL data. But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would violate CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong Steve And the advice of those lawyers that didn't suit you, such as Baker McKenzie, got buried? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:25 PM, 80n wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong Steve And the advice of those lawyers that didn't suit you, such as Baker McKenzie, got buried? You've lost me. I'm guessing you're pointing out something that happened in the last two years that I've forgotten? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Interesting judgment
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/18242810326.shtml The full opinion is worth a read. Or you could just ask Anthony? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Richard Weait schrieb: Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published planets, for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss. The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA. Yes indeed. Including ... We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the license upgrade, or we will not. ... the new planet which is called to be under ODBL. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode But it isn'nt, because the contributors who said yes for change don't give their home copy of their data a second time like in 7.b ... Licensor reserves the right to release THE WORK under different license terms the work = their original work and not a copy of it. But the new so called ODBL-OSM is only an vote-yes-extract of the old CC-OSM so ... 1.b 'Derivative Work' means a work based upon the Work ... such as a ... condensation ... ... is suitable, so ... 4.b You may distribute ... a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). ... also a so called ODBL-OSM ist still under CC and only under CC. A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Heiko Jacobs wrote: A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data has traveled. For example, there's dual-licensed software where you can either use it under GPL or pay for a commercial license. You don't have to re-download the software when you switch from GPL to commercial - you just pay the price and get a piece of paper that says you can now use the software under another license. Often there won't even be a separate download link. It is perfectly sufficient if someone agrees to ODbL, we can then take his data from our existing database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:05:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: TimSC wrote: In that case, is it legally sound if I download my own contribution due, to database rights? Difficult to say - I can see an argument either way. A database right certainly exists and governs extraction from the database; but if what you're extracting is exactly what you put in (with the trivial exception of node ID renumbering), it's very very difficult to argue that any additional rights have been created. Regardless, restricting what you can do with your own contributions would be such a blatantly unreasonable and unfair thing to do that I am 100% sure OSMF wouldn't do it. 100% ? I'd never play with such numbers, not in HA systems, and much less in case where politics and IP laws might be involved :) Sure, they all might the great guys as of now, but suppose OSM becomes importatnt enough to big players, who says TeleAtlas or Google or someone won't get say new 1000 members in OSMF and have a strong majority of votes to pass any such thing? it's not like such things never happend (just rembemer OOXML ballot-stuffing at ISO when Microsoft managed to buy out majority of new country representatives just to get fasttracked) As for the blatantly unreasonable and unfair things not happening, we've had a fine example not so long ago in Croatia with copyright law. So here goes the real-life story story (on one of the the absurdities of one of copyright laws): The guy composed some music on his computer (completely by himself without using anything copyrighed or whatever), and put it up with some graphics (also self-made) to present his products (he was into furniture design). Nothing too complex, just a catalog and few animations with some background music. Then he took the computer to the trade fair with the rest of his products, to better present it to interested visitors... Few days later, he gets a court invitation for copyright violation. As it happens, the agent of ZAMP (which is copyright royalties collecting agency in Croatia, something like ASCAP or BMI in USA, or SACEM in France) was visiting the fair, and noticed this unathorized public performing of audio works and promptly registered it with court. So the guy sees it is ridiculous, as he himself is the author and bearer of rights, and promptly goes to court and explains the situation and that he is the sole author of the music, so the ZAMP agent must have been confused about that. The court listens to him and takes that into account, and then proceeds to explain to him that he *is* guilty after all. As it happens, in Croatian copyright law, the ZAMP agency gets presumption on collecting money for protecting rights for *all* public audio performances on Croatian teritory, no matter who the author is (or how s/he licensed the data) *unless* explicitely notified in writing beforehand by author that he doesn't want that protection for his/her works. As the guy failed to explicitely register himself before the fair as exception to this presumption (as he had no idea he needed to), although he was publically performing HIS OWN WORKS, he was in violation of the copyright law and fined accordingly (the court did take as mitigating circumstance that he was the author of the works, and that is was his first violation, so he was fined only the minimum fine allowed for such violation) So I could quite vividly imagine how downloading your own data (after it enters protected database) could get you in trouble. Especially as it might not be just OSMF that is able to sue you; in some jurisdictions it might be that all OSM contributors are co-owners of database rights, so *any* of them might sue you (and win). -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Matija Nalis mnalis-gm...@voyager.hr wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:05:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: TimSC wrote: In that case, is it legally sound if I download my own contribution due, to database rights? Difficult to say - I can see an argument either way. A database right certainly exists and governs extraction from the database; but if what you're extracting is exactly what you put in (with the trivial exception of node ID renumbering), it's very very difficult to argue that any additional rights have been created. Regardless, restricting what you can do with your own contributions would be such a blatantly unreasonable and unfair thing to do that I am 100% sure OSMF wouldn't do it. 100% ? I'd never play with such numbers, not in HA systems, and much less in case where politics and IP laws might be involved :) Sure, they all might the great guys as of now, but suppose OSM becomes importatnt enough to big players, who says TeleAtlas or Google or someone won't get say new 1000 members in OSMF and have a strong majority of votes to pass any such thing? it's not like such things never happend (just rembemer OOXML ballot-stuffing at ISO when Microsoft managed to buy out majority of new country representatives just to get fasttracked) That's why it is important to be at least minimally aware of OSMF and the people and activities involved. If you don't tell them what you want, they can only do the things that you want by coincidence. This appears to address Tim's concern. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 5. Except as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents. Tim, does this address your concern? Will you support the License upgrade? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Interesting judgment
On 25 July 2010 06:25, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/18242810326.shtml The full opinion is worth a read. Or you could just ask Anthony? That is an interesting ruling, where the higher court over turned a ruling based on contract law and it upheld sweat of the brow efforts ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
