Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Surely we can all agree to differ about whether data imports are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The legal-talk mailing list is not really the place for such a discussion. Most people will say 'it depends on the particular data being added' and we could perhaps leave it at that. What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. We as a community choose what kind of map we want to create, and then need to choose a licence to support that choice. At the moment the tail seems to be wagging the dog. Some people want to import data, some don't. Both groups need to be supported. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Well said. - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed Sep 29 10:01:33 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license Surely we can all agree to differ about whether data imports are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The legal-talk mailing list is not really the place for such a discussion. Most people will say 'it depends on the particular data being added' and we could perhaps leave it at that. What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. We as a community choose what kind of map we want to create, and then need to choose a licence to support that choice. At the moment the tail seems to be wagging the dog. Some people want to import data, some don't. Both groups need to be supported. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009. Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information. This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email. Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] In what direction should OSM go?
This belongs back on talk with a new header. OSM states that it is a free map, free to edit and free to use Whether the database should contain imported stuff, traced stuff, or only personally surveyed stuff is a very big issue and any intent now to alter the basic rules of inputting should be back on Talk. On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:03:15 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Francis Davey wrote: My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under some other licence. Any future license change would then be constrained to the common denominator of all these licenses *or* risk repeating all the data loss whining that we're seeing now. The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal answer is a clear no; because to me, the value of imported data is very small, almost neglibile compared to data contributed by members. I am not against imports in general; I believe there are some isolated cases where a government or other dataset has really helped the project. But I don't see any individual import, or the ability to import data at all, as crucial for OSM's success. I am especially surprised about the mood in the UK community. The UK is where OSM started because David didn't want to be bossed around by Goliath any longer; it is this let's show the OS what a bunch of hobby mappers can do attitude that has given OSM much of its energy in the early days. But today, it seems to me that half of the UK community is of the opinion that OSM is dead if it cannot use OS open data. If that had been the mood from day one, OSM would never have started at all. I firmly believe that collecting third-party geodata into an user editable pool is NOT the main purpose of OSM, and even detracts us. Thus, I would never accept future liabilities in return for being allowed to import a third-party data source. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Hi, Kevin Cordina wrote: What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. And vice versa. I want to import dataset and that's why we cannot use license is tail-wagging-dog as well. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. Richard [1] http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5583459.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] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 29/09/10 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. ... as if OS Opendata was the only data that was imported or traced into OSM... TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final decision on choice needs to be made now. Practice has clearly changed since 2008. If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning when the OS data was released that it was incompatible? Kevin --Original Message-- From: Richard Fairhurst Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 29 Sep 2010 12:22 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. Richard [1] http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5583459.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 Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
That is only true if 100% of the data is removed. My statement is correct in terms of the data in the database at the time the new licence is applied. If there is any residual data then the new licence has to be dictated by the data source licence, otherwise there is a breach of the source licence. There seems to be consensus that removing all OS (for instance) derived data will be impossible, therefore there needs to be compatibility or a breach. Kevin --Original Message-- From: Andy Allan Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 29 Sep 2010 12:40 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Kevin Cordina kevin.cord...@olswang.com wrote: The OS are going to have to dictate the licence because their data is now in OSM and unless you remove it totally, the new licence will have to be compatible with the terms it was added under. Kevin, I think you've missed a large part of this process. It's quite well known that data may need to be removed. Nobody gets to dictate the license simply by having data already in OSM. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 29 September 2010 13:15, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final decision on choice needs to be made now. Practice has clearly changed since 2008. If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning when the OS data was released that it was incompatible? The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. But the Licensing Working Group (LWG) is making further clarification revisions on the Contributor Terms and these will need to be checked. Regards Grant Part of the Licensing Working Group. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 29 September 2010 22:21, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. Any reason you specifically didn't mention that OS's lawyer refutes that claim? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp;amp; the new license
Ed, Ed Avis wrote: And vice versa. I want to import dataset and that's why we cannot use license is tail-wagging-dog as well. Are you saying that any argument based on data imports is irrelevant to the choice of licence? What, then, would be an admissible reason for not using licence, in your view? In my opinion, the license must be chosen according to what's best for the project in the long term; short term considerations should not apply. Admissible reasons for not using license would be, for example, that license doesn't work, isn't enforcable, leaves too much doubt, runs the risk of sidelining OSM in the long run, or such. We already have some data that is not compatible with license is not one of them. 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] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 29/09/2010 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. The campaign to get OS to release data started long before it happened, as you well know. I don't know the precise date but would put a small wager that it was before 01/08 Part of the reason for that campaign was to be able to use the data in projects such as OSM, as you well know. Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp;amp; the new license
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: In my opinion, the license must be chosen according to what's best for the project in the long term; short term considerations should not apply. Admissible reasons for not using license would be, for example, ... that license doesn't work ... ODbL has been extensively tested in the courts over many years, how can you possibly say that it doesn't work? ... isn't enforcable ... OSMF has massive legal resources and an excellent track record of relentlessly pursuing and enforcing copyright violations, of course ODbL is enforceable. ... leaves too much doubt ... Legal counsel has advised that ODbL only uses well established and universally understood legal principles. It is clear and easy to understand and contains nothing that is controversial. ... runs the risk of sidelining OSM in the long run ... Everyone is using ODbL, this is mainstream, there's no chance that ODbL would sideline OSM. or such. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. My question in the original post couldn't have been clearer so I find it frustrating that it took this long to answer. Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes? Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@... writes: Hello,just a quick note to mention that two different legal entities in very different places in the world just adopted ODbL as their preferred licenses: Thanks for the note. The first of these, DataPlace, seems to want a permissive attribution-only licence (we’ve taken an important step to make these data freely available for any use, anywhere, in any application, commercial or public, as long as that use attributes DataPlace) so it's not clear why they have chosen the strong-copyleft ODbL. Under the proposed contributor terms, would OSM be able to import or use any data from these ODbL-covered data releases? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need further review. I cannot release their breakdown and reasoning without their blessing, as you know the lawyer represents OSMF. Having seen the argument as to why CC-BY-SA produced works are compatible with CT/ODbL, I bet I can guess... The argument goes something like 1) Geodata isn't protectable. 2) OS is geodata. 3) Therefore OS is compatible with CT/ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Hi, Dave F. wrote: As I asked you before, will I be able to use this data under the proposed new regulations? Why, of course! You will be able to use OS OpenData under the rules they come under. This is completely independent of OSM. Even if OSM's and OS's licenses were totally incompatible that would not reduce the usefulness of one or the other. If you mean use this (OS) data to create new objects in OSM, please don't! I utterly, totally, fail to understand why one would want to copy OS data into OSM. If you think that OS data is good for you, just draw your map from OS data. If you would like OS data for your base map but cycleways from OSM - go ahead, it's a simple matter of rendering rules. There is a near infinite amount of free geodata on this planet, believe it or not; there is no way that OSM will ever be able to import all of this - and why should we? 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] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes? Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 29 September 2010 18:34, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes? The message was via email outside the weekly minutes. But it was badly recorded in the minutes of the 07/09/2010 with an action item on Mike, who wasn't present at that meeting. - Mike- take up Ordnance Survey OpenData license compatibility with OpenDataCommons. (done) Legal wording needed before announce. (pending) Please quote me with full context: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. But the Licensing Working Group (LWG) is making further clarification revisions on the Contributor Terms and these will need to be checked. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 30 September 2010 07:58, Paul Williams pjwde...@googlemail.com wrote: or contributor loss), but have felt unhappy about such comments as those quoted above that the OS data doesn't matter and so it doesn't matter whether the licence is compatible - I and I am sure many other people find the OS data to be a very useful tool for their mapping. Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it most likely won't effect them personally. Yet they hold stead fast to the current course of things regardless of the impact on others... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
On 30 September 2010 06:34, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This is about the ODbL being adopted by others, thus showing that it is not just OSM who believe that it is good. What about Ed's question, regardless if the information is useful for OSM or not, could it be imported into OSM? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
