Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Anthony wrote: Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts. and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Alright, so, here's what they've said: We occasionally encounter a misimpression that CC licenses can’t be used for data and databases, or that we don’t want CC licenses to be used for data and databases. This is largely our fault Data and databases are often copyrightable. When licensed under any of our licenses, the license terms apply to copyrightable data and databases, requiring adaptations that are distributed be released under the same or compatible license terms, for example, when a ShareAlike license is used. CC licenses can and should be used for data and databases, right now (as they have been for 8 years) — with the important caveat that CC 3.0 license conditions do not extend to “protect” a database that is otherwise uncopyrightable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Hi, this has arisen in a discussion on talk-gb, but I'm paraphrasing to spare you the details. Say you make a printed map that consists of an OSM base map with something else sourced from elsewhere printed on top, e.g. an OSM map with your private dataset of underground pipelines. Until now it was my understanding that such a map can only ever be licensed CC-BY-SA in full; you cannot say the base map is licensed CC-BY-SA but if you trace off the underground pipelines then you violate my copyright. I know that at OSM we always used to say: If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each; if not, then not. For example, several projects using terrain elevation data from CGIAR, which is licensened noncommercial use only, have gone to great lengths to produce multi-layered tiled maps (OSM data on the base layer, then CGIAR data on the semi-transparent intermediate layer, then OSM data again on the top layer) because they have been told that if they merge the data, then the whole tile must be licensed CC-BY-SA - you cannot have a tile that says CC-BY-SA but the contour shadings herein must only be used in a noncommercial context. Over on talk-gb, Peter Miller claimed the opposite; he says that even if multiple sources are combined in an inseparable way (e.g. printed on top of each other), you can still claim that this is a collected work where the CC-BY-SA license applies only to the OSM bit, and not to whatever you printed on top. Of course this would result in a map that can *not* be copied under CC-BY-SA because it is virtually impossible to make a copy and leave out the foreign data that has been printed on top. Peter says that I would consider the proposed resulting work to be 'two or more distinct, separate and independent works selected and arranged into a collective whole with the ccbysa content being used in an entirely unmodified form'. For me, this would be the case if you produce a book with copyrighted data on one page and CC-BY-SA data on the next, but not if you print everything into one so that it cannot be separated and the CC-BY-SA content cannot be accessed separately. I was under the impression that OSM data cannot be used as a base medium to distribute proprietary data. Peter invited me to continue the discussion here rather than on talk-gb, so here we are. Does anyone have an opinion on the matter? I'd be very interested to hear them because I have been explaining CC-BY-SA to a lot of people an I always told them that if they make a printed product it *has* to be CC-BY-SA, fully. Now if it turns out that project opinion is rather more on Peter's side I'd probably make some phone calls tomorrow and tell some people that contrary to what I said earlier, they can go ahead with their projects ;) 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
[OSM-legal-talk] per changeset relicensing
There have been previous discussions regarding per changeset relicensing. I'd like to know if developing the tools to allow per changeset relicensing is worthwhile. There will be some effort involved in the coding, so it would be good to know in advance if this option will be used by many or few mappers. The intent of per changeset relicensing is to permit those with a general agreement to the terms and license, but with a specific concern about a source for a particular changeset to relicense their data, but not relicense that data about which they are concerned. Example: Prof. Mapper maps by GPS and survey as she travels. She also helped a friend map in Erehwon, and added street names from Erehwon Council data. Erehwon council have given permission for derivation to OSM under CC-By-SA, but discussion is continuing re: CT/ODbL, Prof. Mapper agrees with CT/ODbL but recognizes that She doesn't have permission yet to relicense the Erehwon street names. Prof. Mapper could accept CT/ODbL for the bulk of her mapping, and mark the seven Erehwon changesets a with a checkbox for Do Not Relicense and with a note, Pending Erehwon Council permission. This allows several options in the future. It points out datasets and mappers with interest in discussing relicensing with a specific data provider. Should Erehwon Council agree to ODbL prior to any change over date, the data can be included. If not, Prof. Mapper may continue with their unencumbered data. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WFVK6XS ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] per changeset relicensing
- Original Message - From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:38 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] per changeset relicensing There have been previous discussions regarding per changeset relicensing. I'd like to know if developing the tools to allow per changeset relicensing is worthwhile. There will be some effort involved in the coding, so it would be good to know in advance if this option will be used by many or few mappers. +1 from me For instance I have nearly 8,000 changesets under one of my usre accounts but at present I don't think I can agree to the CT's for that user account. However I'd be very surprised if less than 80% of those changesets were ODbL compliant, and I suspect that as far as the percentage of actual data contributed under those changesets the figure is even higher than 80%. It would be a real shame to lose so much data (and so much of my work) Personally I'd find it useful to be able to mark changesets as ODbL compliant or not. First thoughts are that ideally I'd like: 1) the ability to mark all changesets before a certain date as ODbL compliant; 2) remaining changesets to be shown say 20 per page, and the ability to tag these individually or to select all 20 and mark as ODbL compliant. David The intent of per changeset relicensing is to permit those with a general agreement to the terms and license, but with a specific concern about a source for a particular changeset to relicense their data, but not relicense that data about which they are concerned. Example: Prof. Mapper maps by GPS and survey as she travels. She also helped a friend map in Erehwon, and added street names from Erehwon Council data. Erehwon council have given permission for derivation to OSM under CC-By-SA, but discussion is continuing re: CT/ODbL, Prof. Mapper agrees with CT/ODbL but recognizes that She doesn't have permission yet to relicense the Erehwon street names. Prof. Mapper could accept CT/ODbL for the bulk of her mapping, and mark the seven Erehwon changesets a with a checkbox for Do Not Relicense and with a note, Pending Erehwon Council permission. This allows several options in the future. It points out datasets and mappers with interest in discussing relicensing with a specific data provider. Should Erehwon Council agree to ODbL prior to any change over date, the data can be included. If not, Prof. Mapper may continue with their unencumbered data. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WFVK6XS ___ 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
