Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 18:58, Rob Myers wrote: On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. The intent of the licence is to protect the freedom of individuals to use the map. Any derivative work must therefore be under the same licence. Making works where all the elements are not free is precisely what this is intended to protect against. In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent. Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5988247.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] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 18:00, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he says If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each. I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. The license says that attribution is enough for collective works, in that share-alike does not apply to the other components of a collective work (this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License). Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Let's just wait until it goes to court, I say. I'll be interested to see who is so incensed about OSM's data being combined with non-SA third-party data, and how they claim they are suffering losses by the third-party data not being made available to them under CC-BY-SA. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. Like I said, my interpretation of the license - like everyone's - is guided by what we think the intent of it is. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/03/2011 10:13 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent. BY-SA is not a permissive or gift economy licence, it is a copyleft licence. Its intent is precisely to ensure that the freedom to use the work is inalienable. Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. Except those individuals who would not be free to use the results. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? The intent of some may have been to use CC-BY-SA as though it were not a copyleft license (*), but I seriously doubt that was the intention of most of us. (*) To wit, Cloudmade seems to use it that way. The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Depends who the amateurs are. The interpretation of a single legal professional is fairly worthless, unless you've paid that legal professional for advice. Let's just wait until it goes to court, I say. It won't go to court. I'll be interested to see who is so incensed about OSM's data being combined with non-SA third-party data, and how they claim they are suffering losses by the third-party data not being made available to them under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. Like I said, my interpretation of the license - like everyone's - is guided by what we think the intent of it is. You can't just make up the intent without any regard to what the license says about what its intent is. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? Put another way, feel free to use the content of the people who chose to relicense under the ODbL, as if CC-BY-SA were the ODbL. But for the content of those of us who have *not* chosen to relicense under the ODbL, you need to respect that our intent was to release our work under CC-BY-SA, and not the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
