[OSM-legal-talk] Collective database
Hi everybody! I have a question on the collective database under odbl. The case: a navigation software uses data from two sources - the information on roads and buildings from a source under ccbysa, and all the rest - water, forest, borders, poi, landuse - from OSM. The map is prepared by a separate conversion software and then used by the navi program. The resulting map (a single file) contains data from both sources. Can this resulting map (which is a database by its inside structure) treated as a collective database? The data from OSM is not modified in any way and is not merged with non-osm data, it can be displayed separately. So we have two different datasets in one file and we would like to release each dataset under different license. Is it possible? Kirill ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Collective database
Hi, On 06/06/11 12:56, Kirill Bestoujev wrote: The resulting map (a single file) contains data from both sources. Can this resulting map (which is a database by its inside structure) treated as a collective database? I believe so. In my opinion, a derived database would result if you were to mix other data with OSM data in a way that actually looks at the OSM data - for example, if you have an OSM database of streets, and then add to that streets from another dataset but only where OSM had nothing. That would be a derived database. But if you have two datasets that live side-by-side in the same physical database, I would say that is a collective database. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Collective database
Frederik, thanks for the reply. Do we have somewhere a more detailed description of collective database relating to OSM situation? May be some lawyers opinion or something else? Previously we were looking at the situation in a different way and suddenly understood that our positions is not very clear, so we would like to clarify the situation as deep as possible. Kirill On 06.06.2011 15:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 06/06/11 12:56, Kirill Bestoujev wrote: The resulting map (a single file) contains data from both sources. Can this resulting map (which is a database by its inside structure) treated as a collective database? I believe so. In my opinion, a derived database would result if you were to mix other data with OSM data in a way that actually looks at the OSM data - for example, if you have an OSM database of streets, and then add to that streets from another dataset but only where OSM had nothing. That would be a derived database. But if you have two datasets that live side-by-side in the same physical database, I would say that is a collective database. Bye Frederik ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
2011/6/6 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Frederik the great is only interested in remapping Silesia (Schlesien) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great#Warfare I guess you are confusing Frederik the Great with Frederick the Great ;-) Osm fork now has the resources to host the tiles and also does not have the bandwidth problems that osm does. I guess that's clear ;-) For the issue of supposed last minute-acceptors (mentioned by James Livingston): it would really help to block decliners (i.e. move to the next phase) ASAP to make things more transparent. Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Mike Dupont wrote: but seriously, the license team is not concerned about porting the licenses to other jurisdictions, but once you have signed the new contributor terms, they will not ever have to ask you again. This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything for it in return. Well the license team does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? Additionally, giving up all your rights would probably mean something like the switch to a Public Domain license. We are not doing that. If you sign the Contributor Terms you allow OSMF to use your data in a certain way which is described exactly in those terms, and which is quite different from OSMF being able to do anything they want. Actually it is nothing different that what the osm fork team seem to want to do (CC-BY-SA, I believe): once you hand something out under CC-BY-SA you allow people to use it without ever having to ask you again. I challenge you to point out the fundamental difference. The quality of the license is poor, Independent lawyers have said it is the best share-alike license for databases available. Please point me to an ODbL evaluation, written by a lawyer, that supports your claim. the support in the open source community is next to zero, The support for your chosen license, CC-BY-SA I assume, was next to zero when it was new, too. the fragmented nature of the documents is annoying, Agreed. there are many unanswered questions as well, There are even more unanswered questions about your chosen license as applied to geodate. (Do I have to list all names?) the missing compatibility with creative commons is a serious roadblock, Someone who uses creative commons in a sentence like you just did should be disqualified from discussing licensing, at all. Creative Commons sponsors *several* licenses that are incompatible. No license on earth can be compatible to CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-NC at the same time. From that it follows that every license on earth, including every Creative Commons license, is incompatible to (some license sponsored by) Creative Commons. serious roadblock indeed! But once enough people have signed away their rights That's an attempt at demagogy. You are not signing away your rights any more with our Contributor Terms that you are, for example, with CC-BY-SA. the license can be changed at whim The Contributor Terms require a 2/3 majority and a free and open license. If you truly believe that the word at whim is a correct desription for that, consult a dictionary. and adjusted so that it will mostly work, and if it does not, tough luck. As you probably know, most current Creative Commons licenses have an automatic upgrade path that allows them to be adjusted. I think this is a good thing and I don't believe one should critisize the authors of a license for allowing that. We, the osm fork team are working on preserving your work and your contributions under the existing license. There is doubt whether the existing license is suitable to preserve the work. I personally wish that the leaders of OSM were not so us against them, You mean us against we, the osm fork team? Osm fork now has the resources to host the tiles ... thanks to the good people at archive.org, I believe. Why not say so, there's no shame in that. Do archive.org know that they are hosting a fork of OSM? and also does not have the bandwidth problems that osm does. We should be lucky that not everyone who sees a bandwidth problem starts a fork, huh? The only thing that is missing is a good rendering solution for drawing updates, we are working on new software to do a better tiles at home to render in a distributed fashion. That's interesting to hear. When these things are in place your maps of Thailand will not be lost, your data will be available and the tiles will be usable also going into the future. Of the 50 top contributors in Thailand, 39 have agreed to the Contributor Terms and ODbL and 1 has said no; 10 are yet undecided. It doesn't look as if there will be any map problems in Thailand. I wish that OSM was not so monolithic, but there does not seem to be any compassion or understanding for allowing multiple tiles, multiple license or multiple layers in osm proper. What's the difference between multiple tiles and multiple layers? We do still have the Osmarender layer, and last thing I heard was Strategic Working Group actively looking for new tile sources to be considered for the main page. Having said that, OSM is much more than www.openstreetmap.org. With great sadness to I write these words And also with great confusion, it seems, since at least half of it was based on false assumptions. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and contributor terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Maarten Deen wrote: Well the license team does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing the contributor terms. It gains the right to exploit the data in the database. Another funny word, exploit. When I read the Contributor Terms it says that OSMF has the right to license the database under one of currently two licenses, with the option of asking (!) the community to enhance that choice of licenses in the future. I think this is not something that is a lot of fun, or of commerical value, or whatever. It is not a gain, it is a responsibility that we burden OSMF with. I fail to see what Mike thinks OSMF should do in return for that burden. The Contributor Terms require a 2/3 majority and a free and open license. If you truly believe that the word at whim is a correct desription for that, consult a dictionary. Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Because we don't have any contributor terms that would save us from asking the remaining 1/3 after 2/3 have agreed, and thus a 2/3 majority would not be of any use currently. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:48:54 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Maarten Deen wrote: Well the license team does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing the contributor terms. It gains the right to exploit the data in the database. Another funny word, exploit. When I read the Contributor Terms it says that OSMF has the right to license the database under one of currently two licenses, with the option of asking (!) the community to enhance that choice of licenses in the future. Exploitation does also mean using something in an unjust and cruel manner. I'm under the impression that that's how you see what I wrote. But exploitation in general is using something. You can for instance exploit a mine. And that perfectly covers the royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. OSMF gains the right do do anything with the data as long as it does not breach copyright etc. Certainly there is a gain there. It gains the right to exploit the data. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 06/06/11 14:52, Maarten Deen wrote: But the current action is: accept or lose the ability to map. That is close to coercion and not a valid base to claim that 2/3's agree to this. It is not anywhere near coercion. OSM is not the state, and you can map wherever else you like. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Maarten Deen wrote: OSMF gains the right do do anything with the data as long as it does not breach copyright etc. Certainly there is a gain there. It gains the right to exploit the data. But can OSMF exploit the data more than anybody else? The contributor terms say Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, blah blah blah. And section 3 says OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ... In my eyes this means that OSMF can basically only do what everyone else can do too. The one exception might be that OSMF choses the license under which data is published (from the list under one of the following...), so everyone else can *only* use the data under that license; whereas OSMF could always use the data under *any* of the named licenses. But I consider this a really minor and un-important difference, and if that difference is a genuine concern of yours (and by extension, Mike Dupont's) then I think that could be remedied without causing too much harm. Oh, and the other exception might be that OSMF can sue others for abuse on your behalf. But again - is that a problem? Would you rather have the sentence about suing for copyright violation removed from the CT, would that be better? 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] CTs are not full copyright assignment (was: Re: Phase 4 and what it means)
I have no intention of getting into a debate about whether ODBL is the best licence for OSM data here. However, I do feel the need to correct one very important factual point regarding the Contributor Terms. On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 06:20 +0200, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything for it in return. No, you are granting rights to OSMF, not giving up all your rights. There is nothing to stop you additionally licensing your contributions in any way you like. This is less onerous than the FSF terms (which seem to be fairly widely accepted in the open source software community). FSF requires full copyright assignment: you lose title to your own code. OSMF does not require that: you still have title and you still have rights, but OSMF gains rights (subject to conditions), too, and can thus include your data in the OSM database. FSF FAQ re copyright assignment: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright Text of FSF copyright assignment form: http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html David PS I don’t personally think the FSF-style full copyright assignment is evil, but accept others may disagree. The point is that it is irrelevant here, because OSMF is not asking for it. PPS IANAL :) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Richard Weait wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen lt;md...@xs4all.nlgt; wrote: Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and contributor terms. It is kind of ironic that people who use the accept the CT question to vote on the transition to ODBL get told that this is not a vote if they think ODBL is the correct licence for OSM but that they should only indicate if they will accept that their personal contributions can be used under the CT or even get told that they are poisonous people for withdrawing their old data rather than just accepting and walking away from OSM if they don't agree with the licence, to later hear the argument that X percent were in favor of the new license so there you have your majority vote. These two questions are very different! 1) Can and do you agree to relicence your personal contributions under the new CT, irrespective of what your own opinion is of what the best license is for OpenStreetMap 2) Do you think moving from CC-BY-SA to ODBL is in the best interest of OpenStreetMap as a whole, independent of if you can accept the CT for your personal contributions so far These questions could and should have been kept separate and there is no technical reasons, why the 2/3 vote can not be applied to the current transition from CC-BY-SA to ODBL after people have agreed to the CT. But I am repeating my self... Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6447563.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] Collective database
Hi Kirill, If you want to clarify as deep as possible you might also want to check with OpenDataCommons (ODC), the authors of the license. Their mailinglist can be found here: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss cheers, Henk Op 06-06-11 13:46, Kirill Bestoujev schreef: Frederik, thanks for the reply. Do we have somewhere a more detailed description of collective database relating to OSM situation? May be some lawyers opinion or something else? Previously we were looking at the situation in a different way and suddenly understood that our positions is not very clear, so we would like to clarify the situation as deep as possible. Kirill On 06.06.2011 15:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 06/06/11 12:56, Kirill Bestoujev wrote: The resulting map (a single file) contains data from both sources. Can this resulting map (which is a database by its inside structure) treated as a collective database? I believe so. In my opinion, a derived database would result if you were to mix other data with OSM data in a way that actually looks at the OSM data - for example, if you have an OSM database of streets, and then add to that streets from another dataset but only where OSM had nothing. That would be a derived database. But if you have two datasets that live side-by-side in the same physical database, I would say that is a collective database. Bye Frederik ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment (was: Re: Phase 4 and what it means)
The people are not being asked to agree to a license in general, but to give up an allow the board to tweak the license for them. What is upsetting for me is that there is no porting process like with creative commons, and any leverage one might have will be lost when you agree to the CT. OK, you are giving up all say in the future re-licensing. I should be more careful with words. How is this, which is more what I mean : This process is about you giving up all your rights to approve license change or have any personal say as a normal contributor in the OSM, not them doing anything like producing a *final* and complete license or terms for review, spending the effort to port the license to other jurisdictions, or present a plan for how to harmonize with the creative commons in return. I think that granting osmf these rights will reduce any possible future negotiation strength and that by not agreeing to something that I see as unfinished and untested is the only way to exercise the little rights I have left. I am still interested in contributing indirectly to osm, either by publishing data in cc-by-sa (which is what I mean by creative commons in all my dicussions on this list because it is the current license for the data) or some other share data license that I can understand, but I dont see the point in accepting the CT at all if it will reduce my rights. It would be possible to publish data in a compatible licensed form on some public hosting system with no CTs and let people import the data. I could even find someone who has no stake in the project, or someone who has accepted the ct to do those imports if they are valuable. So I am happy to be an indirect contributor to OSM in the future, as I mentioned before, archive.org has much more space for storing even osm data or other map data than osm does. I am experimenting with hosting osm data on git. So for me this all represents an opportunity to help the osm community by building tools and exploring technology to see how distributed and decentralized mapping can work. You can also use the ODBL dual license on files hosted on archive.org, they support right now public domain and creative commons licenses. You can host osm files and tiles there and slippy maps. these tiles can also be used in josm. So you don't need to use a central database at all. There are also other free hosts for map data. I hope that my contributions will be used or usable by people, and that they will be able to create custom layers, be able to host them and not have to submit to a shifting license. The other point to mention is that for the wikipedia hosted tiles, what will happen when the quality of areas goes down the tubes after the data deletions, maybe in some areas you have an over abundance of mappers, but in some parts of the world you will have data loss. On those areas we should consider using the backup of the osm data for wikipedia tiles where it will be better. I think there will be a good argument for doing so. I think you will need both the new and the old tiles to have a good coverage of the world. I hope that we will be able to merge the two datasets in some way in the future for rendering purposes, need to understand the license better. Another thing is all these points being made in the emails, we should have FAQ points on them, so instead of being told that I am an idiot, be pointed at a faq entry that describes this point in detail. An annotated license document for the current creative commons license and the ODBL would be nice where you can see each point and where the issues are. I am willing to try and understand the ODBL for compatibility and reuse and dual licensing purposes. I was also willing to do that before, but the issue of the CT came up and I cannot even edit any more on OSM. Now I am busying helping creating alternatives for people who are also skeptical about the way things are handled. It should be something that OSMF should be doing, instead of trying to force people to accept the new CTs they should allow them to continue on a separate database while the new regime is tested. But since I am not part of the OSMF I am forced to build these tools outside of the foundations, and am them attacked as the enemy. Why am I the enemy? I dont want to be the enemy, I am also interested in helping map the world. Lets work together on points we can agree on. mike On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:40 AM, David Ellams osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: I have no intention of getting into a debate about whether ODBL is the best licence for OSM data here. However, I do feel the need to correct one very important factual point regarding the Contributor Terms. On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 06:20 +0200, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything for it in return. No, you are granting rights to OSMF, not giving up all your rights. There is nothing to stop you
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: It is kind of ironic that people who use the accept the CT question to vote on the transition to ODBL get told that this is not a vote if they think ODBL is the correct licence for OSM but that they should only indicate if they will accept that their personal contributions can be used under the CT or even get told that they are poisonous people for withdrawing their old data rather than just accepting and walking away from OSM if they don't agree with the licence, to later hear the argument that X percent were in favor of the new license so there you have your majority vote. I feel that the problem here is that the board has serious time pressure or lack of patience, they just dont *want* to take the time discuss this with me or you, We are just problems for them, obstacles to overcome, enemies of progress. Or worse, we are the foot people who are not elected and should just shut up and accept the decisions made for us. Or the feeling that I get, we (or is it just me?) are just idiots whose opinions, concerns and issues do not matter. I don't see why it is a problem to discuss this for years if we need to to get all the points right, what is the hurry here? We are all interested in making OSM better, I think we can agree on that. I would like to have an intelligent discussion and be convinced that the board is doing the right thing, I would like to understand all the issues and see why these steps are being taken. Being told I am an idiot and there are these vague problems does not help, we need to have a detail FAQ that addresses each issue point by point. We need to summarize the countless emails and crystallize them into something usable. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
