Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote: The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks. Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. I'm saddened that the people in control of OSM have such little respect for their contributors. OSMF has failed to demonstrate a convincing majority in favour of a license change, but is embarked on a plan to change the license without any further debate or decision point. This kind of response reinforces the impression that many people are now getting of how OSM is being run. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 2 September 2010 02:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works are included as examples of copyrightable works, and maps are included under pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Yes - I didn't want to bore 8-), though there's a subtle difference in that the US statute originates in a constitutional provision permitting Congress to promote the progress of science, whereas the UK Parliament can pass whatever it likes (as also in Australia). I don't think that's relevant in this case, but it means that it is possible to inject more policy into a USian debate. Even in French law - where the fundamental object of protection is a work of the mind, the Code expressly includes geographical maps as works of the mind (L112-2). Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that a GIS database [is] essentially a computerized map and may be entitled to protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well (see Open Records Law, GIS, and Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). I'm inclined to agree, at least for the UK. Dando's analysis of course doesn't follow through (because we have no Feist) but I think UK authority bears a similar conclusion. I'd guess Australia was the same, but I don't have the same thorough knowledge of it. Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'd certainly argue that maps, as used in that license, include GIS databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's comment that a GIS database is essentially a computerized map as evidence. Ultimately, if it became a matter of dispute, and judge and/or jury would decide, and we can only make educated guesses about whether or not they'd agree. Oh, that seems highly likely. The problem with CC-BY-SA 3.0 is not whether a Work can include a map, nor even (in our view it seems) whether map in the licence include the OSM database, but whether or not CC-BY-SA 3.0 extends to works that are the subject of the sui generis right or not. It is not clear whether other applicable laws (in clause 2 say) would or would not include it, or even whether copyright would be construed to include protections like copyright. I think the express qualification of rights over database in the definition of Work would suggest not. If there's no copyright in the applicable law and CC-BY-SA 3.0 only covers copyright it doesn't matter whether GIS databases are included in maps as a matter of construction of Work since the licence wouldn't reach so far. But maybe you meant to imply all that and I wasn't reading carefully enough. If so, sorry. On the other hand, it might not matter, as I'd also argue that the OSM database is a copyrightable compilation. As to that, Ms. Peterson Dando says in the context of copyright law, GIS databases are compilations which may be copyrighted. That's something that is likely to vary more across the world I'm afraid. In particular some GIS databases might not get over the own intellectual creation hurdle. Finally, I want to be fair and point out that while (or even if) the OSM database is copyrightable, that doesn't mean the copyright on it extends very far. Again quoting Lori Peterson Dando, Even though a GIS database may be copyrightable as a compilation or a map, the protection afforded by copyright may be thin in light of the Feist and Mason decisions. Right. That's even more difficult because, as you know, the approach taken around the world to the way in which one assesses infringement is complicated. When US lawyers talk about thin protection they don't quite mean the same thing as we do and so on. To give a specific example, I'd say a routing database created from OSM data, suitable for running a shortest path algorithm and providing driving directions, would be completely public domain and non-copyrightable, in the US and in many other jurisdictions. Right, because it takes only the factual content and not the work. That seems plausible to me in so far as I understand the US authorities. And that, I'd say, is a flaw in CC-BY-SA. Because it means someone in a sui generis database rights jurisdiction could take OSM, make a routing database out of it, improve that routing database, and then sue people under database rights law for using those improvements. At least, under CC-BY-SA 3.0, I think they could. Yes, I think that is
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Am 02.09.2010 09:49, schrieb Florian Lohoff: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:55:15PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. I think by you also also mean myself? I feel part of the community and have not been asked if i feel CCBYSA is a bad choice, whether i feel Share-Alike is essential, or if i like the ODBL. I am asked to relicense - Which i wont as it stands now. This is not a matter of the ODBL per se (although i am in much favour of PD) but a matter of how YOU treat the me as a part of the community. Although you might find it funny to live your dictatorship or treat people like above - This is the big difference between Linux and OSM, you and Linus Thorvalds. Linus united the community - you are actively trying to split it with statements like the quoted one. +1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote: If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. +1 ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution. What it isn't is share-alike for produced works. Even BY-SA doesn't cover absolutely everything it touches. It doesn't cover collective works, for example. This may not matter to you or me but it is controversial for photographers when their BY-SA work is used to illustrate a non-BY-SA article. Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in what are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM community that I've encountered. ODbL achieves that without sacrificing share-alike on the *database*. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
(Replying to two messages at once as they seem related) Anthony wrote: But it's quite a leap from some databases (e.g. white pages) are non-copyrightable in some jurisdictions and databases are non-copyrightable. In fact, I'd say it's quite plainly false. Oh, absolutely. Copyright and database right law is sufficiently complex, and unclear, when applied to primarily factual data that it would be a brave person who made any unambiguous statement like the latter... especially here in England, where you can probably copyright your own farts. It's not a binary situation where CC-BY-SA never works and ODbL always works. Rather, ODbL provides a very significantly higher likelihood of protection. [second message] You must be misreading them. ODbL is weak copyleft, plus a database rights license, plus a contract agreement. CC-BY-SA is strong copyleft. Do you dispute that, or do you claim that these two are in the same spirit? You weren't asking me :) , but I'd dispute that. I wouldn't say one was weaker or stronger than the other: ODbL's share-alike is simply more clearly defined for data. The canonical example of strong copyleft is the GPL - a software licence whose copyleft persists on any software you build from the same source code. In the same vein, CC-BY-SA is a strong copyleft creative works licence, and ODbL is a strong copyleft data licence. A weak copyleft data licence, taking the LGPL as example, would allow you to create derivative databases from OSM where copyright persisted into the street data but not (say) any road speed data which you had mixed with it - even though the road speed data relies on the street data to function. ODbL doesn't allow that (and I believe that was a deliberate choice by its authors). Because CC-BY-SA is a creative works licence, not a data licence, its strong/weak effects are unpredictable when applied to data. Six examples: - routing code designed solely to work with OSM data: copyleft does not persist into code - printed cartographic map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into creative work - web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied programatically: copyleft does not persist into creative work - web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied manually: copyleft persists into creative work - printed mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into mashup data - web mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft does not persist into mashup data ODbL, as a data licence applied to data, removes most of this unpredictability. No doubt if one applied ODbL (a data licence) to creative works, the results would be just as unpredictable as when one applies CC-BY-SA to data. ;) All such licences expressly limit the scope of what they can be applied to. One way in which ODbL does it is the concept of a Produced Work; CC-BY-SA's equivalent is a list of what it's applicable to. Which approach is clearer is open to debate, as we've seen with the recent (interesting) posts here about CC 3.0. The other way is with the collective works clause in ODbL and CC-BY-SA (or a collection in CC 3.0). The GPL has a similar concept: FSF call it an aggregate. As the GPL FAQ says: By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. which avid readers of this list will recognise as not being entirely different to the discussion we were having a few months back about collective databases, in which Matt very generously titled a similar concept (if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough) the Fairhurst Doctrine. Is one stronger than the other? I don't think there's one easy answer. On the one hand, ODbL has some provisions which require the end-user to give more back: in particular, the GPL-like requirement to release source. On the other, some items are caught within CC-BY-SA's copyleft and not ODbL's. (I'm quite prepared to believe that there may be items that are caught by ODbL's copyleft and not CC-BY-SA's, given the existence of loopholes in CC-BY-SA such as the programatically-generated derivative one.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5490444.html Sent from the 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] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 01/09/10 22:55, SteveC wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote: The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks. Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. I would have hoped the guy who established moderation on the lists would have thought to avoid insulting people. Will the other moderators do their job or just rally round Steve, regardless what he says on the list? Also, try answering Liz's question [1]. If you have previously done so, link to the old discussion. Otherwise, it might be interpreted that you just change the subject to personal attacks to avoid the topic. So I call on OSMF to engage in this discussion (I cc'ed the board). I might add some supplementary questions: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? 2) What is the primary forum to establish community consensus? For gaining consensus, is that forum representative of the entire OSM community? If it is community consensus: 3) Do we have community consensus to change the license? 4) Do we have community consensus to change to ODbL? If yes: 5) On what date was it clear that we had community consensus for the license change? Where is this documented? (Saying it's obvious is not good enough. Documentation please.) 6) On what date was it clear that we had community consensus for CTs/ODbL? Where is this documented? If you can't point me to the answer, or specifically answer these questions, the current direction of OSM is definitely in question. In fact, the information should be at your finger tips. If you can't enter this debate without ad hominem attacks, I suggest you don't waste your time responding. And I am trying to engage OSMF using official channels on this issue too [2], but that debate has not attracted much interest yet. TimSC [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-September/004431.html [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/2010-August/000137.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
TimSC wrote: I would have hoped the guy who established moderation on the lists would have thought to avoid insulting people. Will the other moderators do their job or just rally round Steve, regardless what he says on the list? There are no other moderators. Apart from Steve's announcement, which I believe specifically concerned talk@, all OSM lists are unmoderated. As legal-talk admin I merely look after occasional housekeeping on the list; I don't moderate or filter the content. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Noise-vs-unanswered-questions-tp5488863p5490586.html Sent from the 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] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. If it's not your personal dream licence for OSM, welcome to the club. But, as I say, consensus means compromise. And not just from everyone else. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:39:11 +0100, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. If it's not your personal dream licence for OSM, welcome to the club. But, as I say, consensus means compromise. I do wonder how you can talk about consensus or compromise if part of the issue is how do we get in touch with people that have contributed. It's easy if everyone was on a mailinglist or the wiki. But they aren't. There hasn't even been an announcement made trough the mail system on www.openstreetmap.org. How can someone then possibly say that consensus or compromise has been reached? BTW: not that I've been asked, but currently I would vote against the move to ODbL. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote: The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered my questions, it would have helped. My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having watched it online over the years. The public record shows that there have been several years of conference events, mailing list discussions, working group and board meetings and other events dedicated to deciding on the licence issue. This has resulted in consensus. The actual discussions, debates and votes at events across the different fora have led over time to a compromise that upsets just about everyone equally (apart from those jurisdictions with valid concerns about losing major contributions, who are quite rightly more upset). If you want something more detailed to compare unfavourably to a 100% plebiscite-driven direct democracy like Wikipedia, OCAL, Debian, GNU, Apache and Project Gutenberg don't use then I recommend: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Memorandum_and_Articles_of_Association http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote: If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. +1 ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution. What it isn't is share-alike for produced works. And what it also isn't, is CC-BY-SA for databases. Because it is not share-alike for produced works, and because it requires distribution of source along with distribution of produced works. Even BY-SA doesn't cover absolutely everything it touches. Correct. But irrelevant. Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in what are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM community that I've encountered. So you want to change the license (not just a flaw in the license, but an intentional feature of it). Fine, go ahead, just be honest about what you're doing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Rob Myers wrote: On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote: The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered my questions, it would have helped. My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having watched it online over the years. The public record shows that there have been several years of conference events, mailing list discussions, working group and board meetings and other events dedicated to deciding on the licence issue. This has resulted in consensus. The actual discussions, debates and votes at events across the different fora have led over time to a compromise that upsets just about everyone equally (apart from those jurisdictions with valid concerns about losing major contributions, who are quite rightly more upset). The current situation as I see it is that a group of contributors (possibly supported by the OSMF?) wants to move to ODbL and that a group of contributors does not want that move. Perhaps there are also people wanting to move to yet another license, and maybe people are indifferent. How big either of these groups are is unknown to me. There was some discussion on how the group wanting to move should be measured, by number of people, by number of edits/contributions possibly only measured over a certain period, but AFAIK no consensus has been reached there. If that is consensus to you... Let's put it this way: if that is consensus to the people wanting the move and the people in charge of the license that governs OSM, then I guess the license move is imminent and undebatable. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 09/02/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution. What it isn't is share-alike for produced works. And what it also isn't, is CC-BY-SA for databases. It provides attribution and share-alike on databases. Because it is not share-alike for produced works, BY-SA doesn't have a concept of produced works. It does have private use, collective works, compulsory licencing and other kinds of use that the share-alike doesn't cover. So BY-SA is not reciprocal in every use case at every conceptual level of abstraction either. And there are cases where this doesn't fit people's expectations, notably in illustration (photographic and otherwise) as I've said. and because it requires distribution of source along with distribution of produced works. You have to share the database alike, you mean? ;-) BY-SA 3.0 almost replaced the anti-DRM clause with a parallel distribution clause. I think this is comparable, although I admit that the requirement not to charge for the database in some circumstances may be burdensome. Even BY-SA doesn't cover absolutely everything it touches. Correct. But irrelevant. Entirely relevant. Read Richard's excellent post on how the ODbL and BY-SA compare conceptually, and read the odc-discuss post I just linked to in order to get more of a feel for this. Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in what are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM community that I've encountered. So you want to change the license (not just a flaw in the license, but an intentional feature of it). Fine, go ahead, just be honest about what you're doing. I *personally* have never bought the let's make it easier for nice corporations to not free their data so people can just mash layers up argument on either a legal or a moral level, but this is already how OSM treat the data under BY-SA. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony wrote: Given your arguments on this list, I'd guess you're quite prepared to believe anything that might help prevent you from admitting that you are wrong. At this point the argument has departed from factual/philosophical to ad hominems, so I'll bow out. To anyone who's listened, thank you for listening. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5491588.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Two questions to LWG
Its quite incredible that you can't be bothered to read the output of the LWG but are quite happy to make demands of them. They're volunteers just like the rest of us. Have fun, Steve | stevecoast.com On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:52 AM, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: To LWG, cc legal talk You have not provided an acknowledgement of my recent emails of 11th Aug, 18th Aug (beyond Grant's message of 27th July). Obviously, you are busy but I also don't have time to keep going through my emails and your minutes to see if any discussion has taken place. I first raised the produced works/CC0/PD compatibility issue with you back on 25th May. I have reluctantly decided to set a deadline of 7 days (by 9th Sept) for a response. After that, I will assume communications breakdown - which, while I assume good faith, is rather inconvenient for us. I do have other issues to discuss, but things have come to a stand still on these relatively simple points. Regards, TimSC On 18/08/10 10:36, TimSC wrote: Hi, I haven't received any response from my email last week from LWG. I am sure you are busy but you should know the answer of the question regarding produced works at this stage. Regards, TimSC Original Message Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Two questions to LWG Date:Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:40:26 +0100 From:TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk Reply-To:Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org To: le...@osmfoundation.org CC: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Hi LWG, cc legal-talk I noticed that the wording on the relicensing web page has not been updated [1]. I expressed my concern that the PD wording is rather vague. According to the LWG minutes, you are already have people using it. Aren't you going to address this? Now the LWG have decided on using the existing contributor term document [2], can you answer my question on allowed licensing of produced works, as stated in my previous email? Regards, TimSC [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 On 27/07/10 20:25, Grant Slater wrote:On 26 July 2010 16:56, TimSC wrote: Hi LWG, I noticed the current OSM sign up page has a PD dedication that is worded as In addition to the above agreement, I consider my contributions to be in the Public Domain. If this is an actual legal statement, it is phrased too colloquially. The concept public domain is only a short hand for a certain concept (a PD-like license) and can't really by used in the way it has been. It could be clarified by using a wikipedia-PD type declaration or PDDL or similar statement. If this page is only to gauge user interest in PD, it is also poor as it effectively has a default value no. It should be a multiple choice with yes, no, I don't know with no default, except perhaps the latter option. I urge you to have this reworded for clarity and balance. Also, the relicensing question for existing users should also have this improved wording. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003683.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003688.html And also I never really had a definitive answer to my previous question: can produced works be released using a PD-like license? The two sides of the case are summed up here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/006100.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/006108.html I hope you have time to resolve these issues. I don't particularly want to raise this in person at your regular telemeetings; all the necessary information is public. But let me know if further discussion is required, and I will participate. Regards, Tim Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
- Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions On 09/02/2010 04:16 PM, Maarten Deen wrote: There was some discussion on how the group wanting to move should be measured, by number of people, by number of edits/contributions possibly only measured over a certain period, but AFAIK no consensus has been reached there. The idea is that people will vote with their feet by agreeing or not to the new terms. However many votes OSM has or does not have, that is the only measure that will count in the end. Which, lets face it, is not the generally accepted idea of what a vote is. Most people, I believe, would think that the idea of a vote is asking the contributors do you think something should happen, yes or no, then if the answer is yes proceeding with the course of action. What you are saying is that the vote is proceeding with the course of action, and if people don't like it they can leave the project. This is not the same as the above paragraph. Not only is it not the same but it begs the question of what happens if such a large percentage of the contributors don't agree the CT's. Do you then go back to those that have agreed them and ask them to agree to the old terms? David If that is consensus to you... Let's put it this way: if that is consensus to the people wanting the move and the people in charge of the license that governs OSM, then I guess the license move is imminent and undebatable. Relicencing is the result of a public process that was started some years ago. The move should be imminent (some people are complaining it is taking too long) but it is not a foregone conclusion (nobody can be *forced* to relicence) and constructive questions about the CTs and the process are being taken on board as far as I can tell. - Rob. ___ 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] Fwd: Re: Two questions to LWG
On 2 Sep 2010, at 4:52 , TimSC wrote: To LWG, cc legal talk You have not provided an acknowledgement of my recent emails of 11th Aug, 18th Aug (beyond Grant's message of 27th July). Obviously, you are busy but I also don't have time to keep going through my emails and your minutes to see if any discussion has taken place. I first raised the produced works/CC0/PD compatibility issue with you back on 25th May. Who are you to demand a response from people working in their spare time? You are not even willing to spend the time to read minutes and emails but expect individual response. If every mapper of the 10-20k active mappers expects this then tell me how the LWG or OSMF can do this? hire 500 lawyers to repeatedly answer the same question? What I have learned only a lawyer or a court desicion can give final answers. Whatever LWG says is less than an advise and absolutely not binding. and just to be clear, I am not an osmf member or in any way involved in the license change. Just tired of endless discussions and disrespect of the work these guys are doing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: Two questions to LWG
On 2 September 2010 12:52, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: To LWG, cc legal talk You have not provided an acknowledgement of my recent emails of 11th Aug, 18th Aug (beyond Grant's message of 27th July). Obviously, you are busy but I also don't have time to keep going through my emails and your minutes to see if any discussion has taken place. I first raised the produced works/CC0/PD compatibility issue with you back on 25th May. I have reluctantly decided to set a deadline of 7 days (by 9th Sept) for a response. After that, I will assume communications breakdown - which, while I assume good faith, is rather inconvenient for us. I do have other issues to discuss, but things have come to a stand still on these relatively simple points. Dear Tim, I will add some information since I have a bit of time. I would like to point your attention to point 4.3 of the ODbL license. ( http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ ). From my understanding, the produced work could be released under a CC0 or PD license if you want to. However, you are still obliged to attribute the source that you have used to produce your work. Setting unilateral deadline doesn't serve no purpose, and it doesn't encourage good will on the long term. I cannot speak for the others but I do spend a lot of time trying to talk to people, and attend the working groups weekly. In addition, you made clear that you have seen some of your issues raised in the past in the minutes. If you cannot find the time to read minutes or emails, I suspect there is nothing I can do for you in the end since I share the same constraints as you with probably some larger one. In the end, I am just a volunteer among many. They might seem simple points but nothing is ever simple. I suspect that if it was that simple you wouldn't need to ask the LWG in the first place. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Hi, Anthony wrote: C'mon, that's what weak copyleft means. Not viral for some types of derived works. If that is indeed the definition of weak copyleft - and I'd like you to cite a source on that - then we're changing from one sort of weak copyleft license to another sort of weak copyleft license. But (a) I don't think you have the definition right, and (b) I don't even know why we're debating which labels from software licensing are applicable to ODbL. You can call ODbL blue copyleft or mint copyleft if you want, it doesn't help the discussion. If you make a produced work based on a derived database under ODbL, you have to share the database but not the work. If you do the same under CC-BY-SA, you have to share the work but not the database. Which license is strong and which is weak? The differ in where exactly share-alike is applied, but they do not differ in strength. 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] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: So BY-SA is not reciprocal in every use case at every conceptual level of abstraction either. And there are cases where this doesn't fit people's expectations, notably in illustration (photographic and otherwise) as I've said. You're right, of course. BY-SA provides weaker copyleft than, say GFDL (this was brought up during the Wikipedia transition to GFDL). But that doesn't change the fact that ODbL provides even weaker copyleft than BY-SA. and because it requires distribution of source along with distribution of produced works. You have to share the database alike, you mean? ;-) No, that's not what I mean. BY-SA 3.0 almost replaced the anti-DRM clause with a parallel distribution clause. But they didn't, right? I think this is comparable, although I admit that the requirement not to charge for the database in some circumstances may be burdensome. So, your argument is that ODbL is comparable to something that CC-BY-SA 3.0 almost was? I have no idea if that's true or not, but it's quite irrelevant, as this is not horeshoes or hand granades. Making mash-ups easier and not excluding incompatible data sources in what are now called produced works has always been a strong goal of the OSM community that I've encountered. So you want to change the license (not just a flaw in the license, but an intentional feature of it). Fine, go ahead, just be honest about what you're doing. I *personally* have never bought the let's make it easier for nice corporations to not free their data so people can just mash layers up argument on either a legal or a moral level, but this is already how OSM treat the data under BY-SA. How so? This may be how Cloudmade treats the data, but http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations says that mash-ups are generally required to be CC-BY-SA (with a *possible* exception for mash-ups where the layers are kept separate and independent). How you're supposed to create a mash-up where the layers aren't mashed up is, I suppose, left as an exercise for the reader. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Anthony wrote: C'mon, that's what weak copyleft means. Not viral for some types of derived works. If that is indeed the definition of weak copyleft - and I'd like you to cite a source on that - then we're changing from one sort of weak copyleft license to another sort of weak copyleft license. I suppose you're changing from one (moderately) weak copyleft license to another, weaker copyleft license. But (a) I don't think you have the definition right, and (b) I don't even know why we're debating which labels from software licensing are applicable to ODbL. You can call ODbL blue copyleft or mint copyleft if you want, it doesn't help the discussion. I'm only debating it because you challenged me on it. Frankly, I didn't think it was going to be a matter of dispute. If you make a produced work based on a derived database under ODbL, you have to share the database but not the work. If you do the same under CC-BY-SA, you have to share the work but not the database. Which license is strong and which is weak? You're dropping context by omitting the word copyleft. If you add back the context, it is clear that ODbL is weak copyleft and CC-BY-SA, at least in that particular contet, is strong copyleft. Copyleft does not refer to whether or not you have to share source code. If refers to whether or not you have to license derivatives under the same license. The differ in where exactly share-alike is applied, but they do not differ in strength. Apparently you've never heard the term weak copyleft and strong copyleft, because you keep dropping the context of what the terms mean. Again, copyleft was a term coined by the Free Software Foundation to refer to the requirement to release derivative works under the same license. It has nothing to do with the requirement to share alike (whatever that's supposed to mean), and nothing to do with the requirement to release source code. Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms ensure that all copies of all versions carry more or less the same distribution terms. Noncopylefted free software comes from the author with permission to redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html The term weak copyleft was also coined by the FSF, and used to describe the Lesser GPL (originally called the Library GPL). If you'd like to learn more about the term copyleft, along with other terms like weak copyleft and strong copyleft, a good starting point is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ Once you've read this and come to an understanding of what the terms weak copyleft and strong copyleft mean, another good bit of reading would be the thread at http://www.mail-archive.com/legal-talk@openstreetmap.org/msg01761.html [quote] i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. [/quote] More viral = stronger copyleft. Less viral = weaker copyleft. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: So when you extract the data, you have not extracted anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And the user knows this because of the ODbL advertisement attached to the BY-SA work. Why does the ODbL apply? Maybe in a state with database rights laws, but in a state without database rights laws, if the data isn't covered by BY-SA (and therefore copyright law), it wouldn't be covered by ODbL either. Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as an SVG file. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
