Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work. When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume It disclaims the DB right in all the 3.0 versions iirc. Which is a good point [adds it to the list of things to ask about]. that it doesn't contain anyone else's work under conditions different from those in the license I was given, unless I'm told so. So I You're told of the existence of the source database in the attribution for the CC work. If the CC work includes fair use material, trademarks, description of patents, or photographs of models without release sheets then the CC licence doesn't cover those either despite their inclusion. should be able to excercise my right to reverse engineer the POIs names and positions and the streets graph represented by the bitmaps and distribute the result under a license compatible with the CC license. Reverse engineer is a euphemism for recreate. ;-) Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't covered by BY-SA. (See Jordan's secret sauce explanation on odc-discuss.) So it should be entirely possible to reproduce most of planet.osm or at least the useful part of it (so e.g. not the object IDs and not their order) which would not be covered by database rights or copyright of OSMF. For example I could produce z30 tiles with a public domain mapnik stylesheet and my friend could run a program to produce a .osm file taking the tileset and the stylesheet as input. Steganography doesn't defeat copyright. If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work, for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady Gaga song then record that, the work that you have reverse engineered still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced work to make it. Is there any known case that would show that this is how copyright works? I'm no lawyer, but copyright is mostly reasonable to me whereas what you explain would make it unreasonable. http://www.poster.net/star-wars/star-wars-episode-ii-yoda-photomosaic-4900333.jpg The above image could be made of BY or BY-SA images and the resulting image would still infringe on the copyright in the movie and the character it depicts. For example say I'm using the CC-BY-SA photographs from flickr to create a great photo wall, placing the pictures in alphabetical order. How do I know that I'm not recreating a differently licensed work by somebody else, from which all the pictures were cut out? You don't. But if you're using them to create an image of Yoda, it doesn't matter what images you use. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Anthony o...@... writes: So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, ...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, Well, depends on what you mean by that. MapQuest certainly can (physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the bottom of the screen saying this map tile is released under CC-BY-SA. Right, and I could photocopy today's Financial Times and put the same notice on it, but that's not what I mean by 'can' or 'cannot'. And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing so. Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing so. Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing (etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA. On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA, if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL. Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here disagree with.) You are merging two separate events into one when you talk about distributing a recording under CC-BY, distributing a recording, and licensing the recording under CC-BY. The ODbL explicitly allows the former. But it is actually silent about the latter. (It says that you can't sublicense the score under CC-BY, but it says nothing about whether or not you can license the recording under CC-BY.) Ah - so although you are authorized to distribute produced works, those who receive them may not be authorized to distribute them further. This may be the crux of the issue. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say* you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY. I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM. As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents'. Could you explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they differ from the 'database' itself? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't covered by BY-SA. Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/19/2010 11:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Anthonyo...@... writes: On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA, if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL. Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here disagree with.) At length. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Anthony, On 11/19/10 14:38, Anthony wrote: If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial extract of data. You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works that way and see if OSMF sue me. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial extract of data. You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works that way and see if OSMF sue me. Sure - but isn't the supposed advantage of the ODbL/DbCL setup that it makes it clearer what is and isn't allowed? As far as I can tell it tends to make things murkier and more clouded by legalese. That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new licences and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee beyond doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote: The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY. Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but the ODbL does not *say* you can do so. It contains, in combination with the DbCL, the permissions required to do so. As I explained to you earlier in the year on this mailing list. That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is indisputable, was questioned. Search the ODbL for the string CC-BY. You won't find it. Search the ODbL for the string proprietary licence. You won't find it. So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote: So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either. And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open in front of me, I can't find any mention of the words map, cartography, geodata or database in the licence that OSM currently uses. So clearly if Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are right, BY-SA can't be used for any of those things. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote: So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either. And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open in front of me, I can't find any mention of the words map, cartography, geodata or database in the licence that OSM currently uses. And if you had the text of BY-SA 3.0 open in front of you, then you'd see that it has a lot to say about these matters: *Work* means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, *whatever may be the mode or form of its expression* including ... an illustration, *map*, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to *geography*, topography, architecture or science; ... Hmm, perhaps we could use a license like this... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote: The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY. Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but the ODbL does not *say* you can do so. It contains, in combination with the DbCL, the permissions required to do so. And I never said it didn't. That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is indisputable, was questioned. Search the ODbL for the string CC-BY. You won't find it. Search the ODbL for the string proprietary licence. You won't find it. Correct. So if what you are saying is correct the ODbL doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either. I have no idea where you're getting that from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one. If, however, you intend to protect our data by putting it under a share-alike data, then any additional license you add weakens that protection. Your suggestion would effectively kill the relatively strong share-alike element of ODbL that requires people to share the database *behind* a produced work, rather than just the work itself. So why are you, as a PD advocate, in favor of the ODbL? That aspect of ODbL is particularly nasty, if in fact it is enforcible. Whether or not it is, once you throw the DbCL into the mix, I don't know. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work. When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume It disclaims the DB right in all the 3.0 versions iirc. No, only in EU jurisdiction ports, and there the disclaiming is conditional. See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html Mike -- https://creativecommons.net/ml ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Oops. Sorry about that. :-( - rob Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work. When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume It disclaims the DB right in all the 3.0 versions iirc. No, only in EU jurisdiction ports, and there the disclaiming is conditional. See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html Mike -- https://creativecommons.net/ml ___ 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] [talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases (including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section 4.4) I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible licence improvements without overstepping the mark. I can agree to something that is essentially an incremental upgrade, but not for an arbitrary licence switch. I have some trust (possibly baseless) that OKFN would incrementally improve the ODbL (even better if they formally state that they would only ever incrementally update the licence). However, the CTs “explicitly” give the option of a switch to an arbitrary free and open licence, which still gives the option of a licence that is fundamentally different. “Free and open”, as well as being a vague term that I doubt has any formal legal definition (please correct me if I’m wrong), does not magically make all such licences the same, as shown by the various incompatibilities between so‐called “free” or “open source” software licences. Now who exactly decides when to issue a later version of ODbL or what makes a license compatible isn't made explicit, but I think it is safe to say that an upgrade along that path would be possible with a lot less eyes watching than an upgrade under the upgrade per clause 3 of the CT! So, you advocate having two upgrade paths, including what you consider a more stealthy upgrade path, rather than just the one? I don’t see how that’s any better. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some new users will be shuned away while those existing users are allowed to contribute to the project. I think everyone should be treated fairly, regardless of whether some people signed up earlier than others. Occasionally I see somebody write something sensible, and this is one of those occasions. Yes, all users (contributors?) should be treated the same, regardless of when they joined. The OSMF, after member “vote”, is committed to putting up the new licence for community adoption. In doing this, it has confused itself with supporting the process and supporting the licence itself. It goes even further, not necessarily directly by OSMF members, but most likely influenced by it, to state such things as “we are changing the license”. I generally consider “adoption” as something done by choice, but this has apparently already been decided for the community. Requiring new users to sign up to the new CTs just adds bias to the adoption of the new licence. I see the ODbL (+DbCL) as an enhancement to the current situation (although I despise the CTs), but manipulating it so that it gets any advantage like this is just wrong. I’d like to see all mandatory “agreements” to the CTs so far to be disregarded, and mandatory agreement to the CTs be removed for new sign‐ups. All users may fairly be informed about the licensing options, and where they can indicate their preference. At this point we determine what the level of support for the licence+CT change is, and if and only if we have overall support for the licence+CT change we change the sign up terms to reflect it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some new users will be shuned away while those existing users are allowed to contribute to the project. I think everyone should be treated fairly, regardless of whether some people signed up earlier than others. Occasionally I see somebody write something sensible, and this is one of those occasions. Yes, all users (contributors?) should be treated the same, regardless of when they joined. +1 The OSMF, after member “vote”, is committed to putting up the new licence for community adoption. In doing this, it has confused itself with supporting the process and supporting the licence itself. It goes even further, not necessarily directly by OSMF members, but most likely influenced by it, to state such things as “we are changing the license”. I generally consider “adoption” as something done by choice, but this has apparently already been decided for the community. Requiring new users to sign up to the new CTs just adds bias to the adoption of the new licence. I see the ODbL (+DbCL) as an enhancement to the current situation (although I despise the CTs), but manipulating it so that it gets any advantage like this is just wrong. I’d like to see all mandatory “agreements” to the CTs so far to be disregarded, and mandatory agreement to the CTs be removed for new sign‐ups. All users may fairly be informed about the licensing options, and where they can indicate their preference. At this point we determine what the level of support for the licence+CT change is, and if and only if we have overall support for the licence+CT change we change the sign up terms to reflect it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJM51QiAAoJECRyzizpC9xmPxUQAKs8BE8EZoeF+L850DUOsCYk 4IvzNDcKhoF0KOoVV3+DQVmG4NlXCmcen0Hr3v8go+2szfIlbl0tSU4FMh4y709l /WneINCnYiclFsDNNXI9AghPnIWaN/7mRcYz7WZVIIdqan7IwOjSt6FyFQEYSuf9 03c1ofL48wzJpJJ80BqHRv5qzAGijgpglJOZwiesovy5dPpNyZroiz89SLj6PhAC mJWo2vhdyFtKBnOsYCKb1T+OGdL5uEFryp/eZQwAg9PZ8MElTlOF8BLBZteixIXq EijPqBxhQCsSfugDQkahSNIebuwGrxzLXNpyOnDtkhRrkcvx3o2iN5RYUtaQEBe+ WiR+5iJabZbWw0UvJ2huq1Z9NgF3WkUwBiL/OUPs5K1KcgGPWTBTE2GwiqB4umvD Ckj7p/g+NuQajPIy6n0ZkpulKBl+u++bPWAc/22A5mvQ9H4TJH5jg25lpeWftOvj PlORbVQm+PJvGeuosZUHglZFyEa24+QvLgqHcV/QGWWMIKcV+Y/KwUmiVcru6mAU rYe5Z9K/CK79N7Pt48j3TlLjztH7NVR46b+UdkjNrIImkIWTdeQdVsE0aUi486cK es9qNk6SFL8wLKxAd0Pluc110Fch2cMrGgPGiC0Ha3O6TPf+3GcrYusZAaSMPKBR jbCLrWI9TIFNg2gwLxIE =4sYp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
