Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Meme. I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was explicitly referenced. I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another party's definitions. They should be free to find their own. How do you find the OKD limiting? I don't. To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be limited by it? I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM I agree. doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. You are wrong in thinking that I am dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing the OKD would be a no-brainer. To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data. Well, I would be, but in light of what I have just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. It's not paranoia. It's a recognition that the task has been necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. May be. And OSM isn't the only major free/open project that has had to be relicenced. The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad “free and open licence” of the CTs. The reason I mention Wikipedia is that it shows that is not sufficient to prevent relicencing. A good example of a very successful project that decided it was cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. I don’t see how that affects this. You don't see how an actual example of licence lock-in having detrimental effects on a project's users is relevant to a discussion of licence lock-in? The kernel developers (rather Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The above issues are completely irrelevant. Their reasons, whatever they were, have had detrimental consequences for future users. The *fact* that this has caused issues is entirely relevant. I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only, and have always accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence. That's probably because it is. Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally unnecessary. I have provided historical examples of project licencing and relicencing and I have argued that they show this not to be the case. But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once. Yay, more fear. Which part of what I wrote there is factually or logically incorrect? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be limited by it? No. I said I don’t think it is sufficient, a different thing entirely. I would actually prefer the licence choice to be more limited than “anything that meets the OKD”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM I agree. doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. You are wrong in thinking that I am dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing the OKD would be a no-brainer. To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data. You think: OSM should not be limited by an external definition. OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting, You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a good idea for OSMF to reference it). I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software many, if any, favours. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote: city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. See this clause: These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS Data. Translation: You don't own it. Now see this clause: You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder Translation: You don't own it, you can't add it. (I'm glad this isn't just about Nearmap now.) Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 12:10, Simon Ward wrote: You think: OSM should not be limited by an external definition. OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting, You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a good idea for OSMF to reference it). I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that way. This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD. I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is needed. ;-) If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. Fear, uncertainty and what? If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software many, if any, favours. My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* definition should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote: I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that way. This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD. So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred from it being open to debate, and that the OKD would limit this)? I’m struggling to make sense of this. I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again: Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use, analyse, modify, and redistribute? If the answer is “no”, what does it mean? If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition satisfy the OKD? In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”? Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”? Where is it lacking? I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science Commons protocal for open access too? Anything else? I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is needed. ;-) I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet: Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect? The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses. I will also add: When defining free software we refer to the free software definition. It does not limit or harm software that is intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?) If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. Fear, uncertainty and what? Now you’re getting it! :) My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* definition should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should. Why leave it undefined? Is this another way of saying we leave it wide open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in future? If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree with that approach. Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged, and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage at the time. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote: I think it is unnecessary to leave it wide open. free and open doesn't leave it wide open. I don’t necessarily want relicensing to be prevented, but I think doing it should be discouraged. The Wikipedia relicensing was similarly a big effort, and they actually sought the clause, which was time‐limited, to allow them to relicense. The FSF could have just said “no” (but they listened to reason, and ultimately Wikipedia was still freely licensed). It was a big step, and proportionally a lot of thought went into it. A lot of thought has gone into applying the ODbL to OSM (sadly not much of it went to the CTs). Then we just give OSMF blanket rights, and define some very open conditions for relicensing, and the sense of proportion is lost. Relicencing is, I agree, a drastic move. But we are talking about making it possible or not here. And it is something that requires a convincing vote to achieve under the CTs. How widespread is this really? DRM, SaaS, Software Patents and Tivoisation? Apple, Microsoft and Google seem to be doing OK from them. The types of devices where this has become a problem also tend to be running Busybox which has a history of pulling people up for licence violations. It gives the manufacturers bad press, and we get to avoid these devices for the free software friendly competition (ok, so there wasn’t much competition in the TiVo space at the time). We got new licences to choose from that countered “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. the large projects, most notably Apache, that use even more permissive licences (the old GPL vs BSD arguments, oh the flames). Let's also not forget that Apache's corporate-friendly permissive licencing is the reason Google have been taken to court by Oracle. I do not think arguing by counter example is sufficient proof here. Those historical examples were special cases in their own rights, and a They are examples of large projects. That they had their own specific reasons for relicencing underlines the fact that relicencing is a general problem rather than one that only problem or opportunity X can lead to. large number of projects have also survived without the need to ever relicense. Smaller projects, yes. I didn’t say it what you wrote was incorrect. I implied that you were using the current “wrong” licence choice as a reason for leaving it wide open because of the fear that it will happen again. And I implied that calling an argument that presents its case based on evidence and argument fear was a rhetorical move rather than any kind of refutation of the argument. I’m not after the freedom to relicense here, I’m after the freedom for the data to be useful. I don’t believe the freedom to relicense plays a large part in the continued usefulness of the data, the licence itself helps more with that, and if it doesn’t, why are we moving to it again? And why didn't OSM just use it to start with??/ - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 11/12/10 13:14, Simon Ward wrote: So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred I would certainly hope not. I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again: Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use, analyse, modify, and redistribute? Presumably. If the answer is “no”, what does it mean? If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition satisfy the OKD? I would certainly hope so. In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”? It doesn't. Using it as a normative document will set and limit the terms of debate where it is referred to. This may be a good thing, it may not, but it is how it will work. Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”? Where is it lacking? I believe that it does. It's based on the DFSG, but nobody's perfect. I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science Commons protocal for open access too? Anything else? Heck, no. I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet: Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect? I am wearily familiar with the concept. The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses. I will also add: When defining free software we refer to the free software definition. It does not limit or harm software that is intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?) I certainly refer to the FSD. Now you’re getting it! :) I've the feeling I am. ;-) Why leave it undefined? To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-) To avoid *another* dependency on another project. To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and AGPL opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r. To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by self-identified time-wasters. Is this another way of saying we leave it wide open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in future? If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree with that approach. I am saying we cannot know what future requirements will be except that they may not be the same as present requirements. More detail is not always better. The FSD is much less detailed than the DFSG, and in my opinion it is by far the clearer and less confusing document. Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged, and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage at the time. A vote is not pressing a little button. Not in that sense at least. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Defining free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)
Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my thinking. On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote: Why leave it undefined? To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-) Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say “it’s the OKD, stupid!” :) To avoid *another* dependency on another project. As far as I am aware the text is licensed under CC by-sa, and should OKFN change course, or jump ship, OSM could always fork the definition. In general, I’m not averse to depending on organisations such as OKFN, the FSF, OSI, and Debian to host and maintain definitions. It’s very nice to be able to just point at them and just say “that’s how we define it” and move on, concentrating on our own projects real aims. To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and AGPL opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r. I’ve had people similarly tell me that, despite claiming they would not add further restrictions to future licences, the FSF did just that with GPL v3 because it restricts how software producers can package and distribute their products. Forget about the freedoms of end users! To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by self-identified time-wasters. Meh, they can waste their time. This is just one of those things where I would say we just pick a definition then move on. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote: We got new licences to choose from that countered “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. They can. But the lead developer doesn't want to. The fact that he isn't forced to move against his wishes is a feature, not a bug. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
