Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: David ( some others), David Groom wrote: I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery to create derived works, all the only answer is we have it. As I've said before if its there please show us where it is. Just out of interest; why are we having this conversation? Is it just to determine who is right and who is wrong and who was right in the first place and who gets extra points for being super nitpicking (hello 80n, have you never written a final document and later made a v2 of it?) and who gets to sit on the golden seat in lawyer heaven? Do you *want* to use Bing imagery but feel you cannot? Or do you not want to use Bing imagery and are looking for a reason? I mean, every now and then I enjoy being a tongue-in-cheek smartass myself, but somehow I have the impression that not only has this discussion left the ground a while ago, no, meanwhile someone has cut the tether as well. By all means, if that's what floats your boat, continue - but you'll excuse if meanwhile I'm a little bit pragmatic and trace some aerial imagery. I'm sure it is wrong somehow, but I like the outcome. I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so we can use this as a mapping source. If the folks at Microsoft really do have the permissions to and grant us the permissions to license derived works as we wish, (even under the condition that they are uploaded to osm.org), they would come on this list and tell us directly whether we have the permission or not. As I mentioned before if this is not sorted out, conflicts will arise where two contributors are both working on the same feature, one believes we have the legal right and community norm to use Bing imagery to trace that feature, and another will think we don't have the right and want to create the same feature from their GPS survey. We cannot just divide and say trace if you want and don't if you don't think its okay. We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have this conflict. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 20/12/10 10:00, David Groom wrote: Why are we having this conversation? Because every now and then someone makes a statement along the lines that we have a licence which allows us to use Bing Imagery for tracing, and as far as I can see that is not backed up by any evidence. It is backed up by the evidence provided. When anyone details their concerns about this, the only answers that are ever given is we have permission to do it, They are pointed to the relevant documents. And an explanation of the combined results of those documents is offered. Which indicate that we have permission to do it for the reasons that have previously been given. Do we have any legal experts who have looked at this evidence? What is their opinion? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On 21/12/10 10:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM In what way would Bing traced data conflict with BY-SA? OSM is currently licenced BY-SA. Bing-derived data from OSM editors must be contributed to OSM. Bing data will therefore currently be licenced BY-SA. community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so we can use this as a mapping source. OSM isn't going to be licenced BY-SA much longer. While it is, the Bing-derived contributions in OSM will be included with the BY-SA version. If the folks at Microsoft really do have the permissions to and grant us the permissions to license derived works as we wish, (even under the condition that they are uploaded to osm.org), they would come on this list and tell us directly whether we have the permission or not. What we have is sufficient permission to upload Bing traced data to OSM under the CTs. OSM can then licence the data as they have stated they will. Which, currently, means under BY-SA. We do not have permission from Bing to licence the data differently anywhere else. And contributions to OSM should be under the CTs. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Andrew Harvey wrote: We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have this conflict. We do have a norm as a community. 99% of people are tracing from Bing imagery and you're not. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Someone-already-had-a-look-at-the-Bing-Terms-of-Use-tp5804802p5855482.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] [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 01:00:26PM +, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote: On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, […] this is no way different from GPL released software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html Reading the link it looks like a very different situation. It’s different. The FSF requires you assign copyright to them (for their projects), and promises that they will make it free software (so you have the rights given by the free software licence used) and on request they will grant you back the non‐exclusive rights to do whatever you see fit with the software. This makes it easier for them to enforce copyright because they are now the copyright holders. It also allows them to re‐license, but they have promised by contractual agreement to release the software with only a licence that gives the freedoms that the organisation is founded on (by explicitly stating them, not by stating “a free software licence” or similar). OSMF is asking you to grant them non‐exclusive rights, essentially to do as they see fit, but you remain the copyright holder (where there is any copyright). I’m unclear on how copyright can be enforced in this situation, but the CTs also include a grant to sue for infringement. The OSMF clearly are not using the CT for the same reasons the FSF require copyright assignment. To OSMF it seems to be largely a vehicle to prevent them from being able to change the licence. I of course meant “it seems to be largely a vehicle to allow them to change the licence”, d’oh! From reading the lists, and OSMF minutes, this is the impression I get. Copyright enforcement, while included in the CTs, is secondary. Much of the discussion has revolved around the need for the ability to re‐ license, although that may be because it is one of the most contested parts of the CTs. 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] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Hi, On 12/21/10 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so we can use this as a mapping source. I.e. you are not happy with applying your (rather skewed IMHO) interpretation of legal matters to your own work, but you would prefer to force it on everyone else in the project, stopping them from using Bing until the available documentation matches your personal interpretation, is that right? Have you applied the same rigor to other data sources that were widely believed to be usable, e.g. Yahoo? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Phillip, On 12/21/10 16:43, Barnett, Phillip wrote: So people who have not (yet) accepted the CTs can't use Bing? Is that really the case? I think Rob was slightly wrong when he said: We do not have permission from Bing to licence the data differently anywhere else. And contributions to OSM should be under the CTs. We do indeed have permission from Bing to trace the data and incorporate it in OSM, whatever OSM's license, and independent of the CT. (This means they put quite some trust in us not doing stupid things because if OSM were to change its license to the dreaded everything belongs to Frederik license then so would the data traced from Bing until that time.) This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Anthony, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted to OpenStreetMap. 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
