Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Data that is not fully relicensable, i.e. comes with strings attached, will always be second-class data in OSM because it carries with it the potential to cause problems. At the very least it would have to be flagged as such. Giving everyone the opportunity to add such second-class data at will (and risking that others who would normally contribute first-class data build on second-class data and thus produce something of lesser use to the project) seems a bad choice to me - worse, actually, than doing our best to explain to everybody why we can only accept first-class data, and wave a sad goodbye to those who won't play. The OSM project only publishes data 'with strings attached'. I think we should not demand from others more than we are willing to do ourselves. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at the end of it Yes, I remember - he used this example to show that majority relicensing is not a natural consequence of a collective effort. But that was never quite my point. Relicensing through majority /does/ make sense for a collective effort if the intention is to be actually able to perform a license change. How many successfully relicensed movies do you know? Grant and others keep going on about reading the spirit of the CT more than the wording, but at present OSM uses a share a like license (similar to GPL) but might switch to a PD/BSD license in future, this uncertainty will turn many in the software world off, as I keep asking why is the majority of OSM software so proudly offered under GPL and not BSD if you want things to be future proofed? Unlike ODbL, GPL and the FSF have had the opportunity to build trust over the course of decades. Software licensing is well understood, and there is an established set of license choices. All this is not true for ODbL and ODC in the realm of databases. A stable license landscape is very important for share alike licenses because they tend to be mutually incompatible even if they have similar intentions. Another obvious difference is, of course, that the number of programmers in an FLOSS project is multiple orders of magnitudes smaller than the number of contributors to our database, making ask everyone relicensing somewhat feasible. If there is any comparable example at all, it's not software development, but rather Wikipedia's license change from the dead-end that was GFDL to the popular CC-by-sa. This was a majority decision, wouldn't ever have been possible through individual relicensing, and I'm under the impression that it was almost univerally welcomed as an excellent move. Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence. (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.) This switch has just been announced: http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2011/01/changes-to-the-os-opendata-licence/ Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, which is explicitly compatible with ODbL. They switched today. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5895059.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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 01/06/2011 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 01/06/11 11:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote: hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, which is explicitly compatible with ODbL. They switched today. :) How can they do that without discussing it for four years in advance? Also, despite being a British citizen, I didn't get to vote on it. The switch is great news though. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: John Smith wrote: On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at the end of it Yes, I remember - he used this example to show that majority relicensing is not a natural consequence of a collective effort. But that was never quite my point. Relicensing through majority /does/ make sense for a collective effort if the intention is to be actually able to perform a license change. Sure. But it's not my intention that OSM be actually able to perform a license change. I haven't been sold that the ability to change licenses, as opposed to the ability to upgrade to a new version of the same license, is more important than the principle of, as you put it, individual data ownership. As I've agreed in the past, it is indeed a fundamental philosophical disagreement. I am a strong believer that individual ownership, as opposed to collective ownership, produces the best and most fair results. I don't believe that large groups of people, acting collectively via voting, make good decisions about licenses. And, in fact, I think you will find that even among successful projects which have delegated license decisions away from the individual contributors, that the vast majority of them have delegated those decisions to individuals or to very small groups/boards/committees, not to the membership at large or to the contributors at large. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for governmental organisations] and I have updated IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating what will happen if the license changes in future. Clause 4 is part of the Contributor Terms. That is the point. It survives any license changes in the future. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Mike Collinson wrote: given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer ODbL-ready, sickly sadly all too possible. That's vandalism, of course. Could you share their user ID? Richard, I'll let sleeping dogs lie for the while as said user has normally conducted themselves with personal courtesy to all. I hold my breath that I have got entirely the wrong end of the stick and an August mass deletion of abutters tags, carefully ground recorded and entered when such things showed on the map, is meant to be replaced with imagery landuse digitisation :-) cheers Richard (Rather coincidentally, this was published today: http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ ) What a beautifully apt cartoon! I almost wish that Tobias Knerr's words earlier in this thread were my own: The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between my data, your data and their data. As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective, not individual, decisions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to do with the end user license: 4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. Mike At 04:42 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: Which clause 3 contradicts On 1/7/11, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for governmental organisations] and I have updated IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating what will happen if the license changes in future. Clause 4 is part of the Contributor Terms. That is the point. It survives any license changes in the future. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Sent from my mobile device ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] US Rails to Trails database
Hi all, I'm a rank newbie at OSM, but getting into it because of my interest in mapping bike facilities. The US Rails to Trails Conservancy has an outstanding database of bicycling trails. This Traillink database is the basis of Google's bike layer. I've read the legal FAQs for using data from other parties and understand it's best to get specific permission on data imports. I asked Rails to Trails about licensing their data to OSM and they say they've been thinking about it and asked me to put them in touch with somebody official at OSM. They also indicated they would like some kind of attribution where their data is used. So, umm, who do I point them to? Thanks! Richard Masoner Santa Cruz, California USA http://www.cyclelicio.us/ is yummy! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] US Rails to Trails database
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Richard Masoner rmaso...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm a rank newbie at OSM, but getting into it because of my interest in mapping bike facilities. The US Rails to Trails Conservancy has an outstanding database of bicycling trails. This Traillink database is the basis of Google's bike layer. I've read the legal FAQs for using data from other parties and understand it's best to get specific permission on data imports. I asked Rails to Trails about licensing their data to OSM and they say they've been thinking about it and asked me to put them in touch with somebody official at OSM. They also indicated they would like some kind of attribution where their data is used. So, umm, who do I point them to? You can have them contact the OSMF License Working Group le...@osmfoundation.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 01/06/2011 07:14 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (Rather coincidentally, this was published today: http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ ) What a beautifully apt cartoon! Yes, I wish I'd found it. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
