Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Collective database
Thanks, Henk! Kirill On 07.06.2011 4:37, Henk Hoff wrote: 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 ___ 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
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: 3. OSMF to choose a new license that is free and open, present it to OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the 2/3 of mappers hurdle can hardly be called allow the board to tweak the license. The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Of course the OSMF would never do anything like that... -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
Hi, On 06/07/11 10:35, Ed Avis wrote: The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Yes, and you can have a happy and thriving project ever after, with your two contributors. OSM is first a community, and second the data. If you are only after the data and don't mind losing the community then there are other, easier ways; all morally more than questionable but legally defendable. The license change, however, is not driven by the idea that OSMF is the enemy. If OSMF were (the enemy) then we would have a whole lot of different problems. The license change is mainly driven by the idea of making share-alike work better, i.e. the enemy are those who would want to circumvent that. Bye Frederik ___ 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
On Tuesday, 7 June 2011, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote A lot of thought and consultation went into the proposed licence and polls were taken to back up the conclusions. Of course, the fact that the process took years has led to plenty of mappers who can claim not to have been asked. They've all been asked now, though, and the results speak for themselves. - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence Indeed. Asking people seems like an excellent way to address your no vote concern. - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Such an approach could possibly work, albeit at the cost of losing the community if the community held the process to be unfair. The fact is, though, that people who said no have not yet been blocked from contributing and the 2/3 majority has already been reached. The wrong kind of majority, perhaps? I'm reminded of an argument I was drawn into at the Munich Oktoberfest last year. Smoking is now banned indoors in Bavaria, and one chap, who claimed to be a lawyer, was intent on having a smoke regardless. He considered the law undemocratic. It had been brought in by a referendum forced on the government by a citizen's petition. The referendum was carried. This guy reasoned that lots of smokers abstained from voting because the result was a foregone conclusion, therefore a non-democratic result. How shall we define democracy in OSM? I'm heavily drawn to a model where the course of action endorsed by 99% of those voting can be deemed legitimate. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ 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
On 7 June 2011 09:35, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: 3. OSMF to choose a new license that is free and open, present it to OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the 2/3 of mappers hurdle can hardly be called allow the board to tweak the license. The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Of course the OSMF would never do anything like that... Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the majority of the contributors the stupid evil OSMF you propose would have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS before they could run such a rigged system. The sysadmin team and community would have long jumped ship and started another project. Additionally the door would be open to taking legal action against said stupid evil OSMF and their data would be tainted. Grant Part of OSM Sysadmin Team. ___ 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
Grant Slater openstreetmap@... writes: - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the majority of the contributors the stupid evil OSMF you propose would have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS before they could run such a rigged system. You're right, it is a fanciful and unrealistic example, at least from the point of view of keeping a running OSM project with contributors. It would be a way to get a static copy of the map under any terms wanted. However, what I hope people realize is that these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments are the same ones used to assert that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, any company could just copy it, and so on, despite not a shred of evidence that this has happened. I wish people would apply a more realistic perspective and 'assume good faith' a little bit more in these matters too. All I intended to demonstrate is that no amount of legalese and boilerplate in the licence or contributor terms will block out all possible abuses, so we should lighten up a bit. But you're right and I apologize for the unwarranted snarkiness. -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Grant Slater openstreetmap@... writes: - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the majority of the contributors the stupid evil OSMF you propose would have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS before they could run such a rigged system. You're right, it is a fanciful and unrealistic example, at least from the point of view of keeping a running OSM project with contributors. It would be a way to get a static copy of the map under any terms wanted. However, what I hope people realize is that these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments are the same ones used to assert that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, any company could just copy it, and so on, despite not a shred of evidence that this has happened. funny thing is, i don't see these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments coming from lawyers, whereas i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from Creative Commons itself! I wish people would apply a more realistic perspective and 'assume good faith' a little bit more in these matters too. as do i. everyone serving on OSMF working groups, including LWG, cares deeply about the state and future of OSM, and they spend a great deal of their time trying to ensure that future. (small plug for the OSMF workshop, Sunday 12th - come along and chat with the board members and other interested OSMF members [1]) All I intended to demonstrate is that no amount of legalese and boilerplate in the licence or contributor terms will block out all possible abuses, so we should lighten up a bit. you're absolutely right. no matter what the license we have, or the terms that are offered to contributors, there will always be people and companies using the data without complying with the license, or contributors (possibly companies) uploading data which can't be safely used as part of OSM. i do believe that the new license and contributor terms better define what is acceptable, and that if/when it becomes necessary to take action in the future, we'll be in a better place. cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 ___ 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
Matt Amos zerebubuth@... writes: i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from Creative Commons itself! I would be interested to read that. My understanding is that Creative Commons have affirmed what has demonstrably been the case all along - that CC-BY-SA certainly can be used for data, as OSM is doing now. They noted that it would not magically extend copyright to things not covered by copyright. That is quite true, but it does not mean that map data is not covered by copyright. If we have a legal opinion stating that, it would be wonderful to publish it now and clean up the whole mess. (It would also greatly help with people using external data sources, if we knew that copyright does not apply.) -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
On 07/06/11 12:37, Ed Avis wrote: Matt Amos zerebubuth@... writes: i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from Creative Commons itself! I would be interested to read that. Science Commons certainly used to say that the licences *shouldn't* be used for data. My understanding is that Creative Commons have affirmed what has demonstrably been the case all along - that CC-BY-SA certainly can be used for data, as OSM is doing now. They are going to look at improving use of the licences for data in the next revision. BY-SA can indeed be used for data(base) copyright to the extent that you can claim copyright on data(bases). And that's the problem. Copyright in this area is uneven internationally, irregular even within jurisdictions like the US, and not the only restriction on the use of data(bases). They noted that it would not magically extend copyright to things not covered by copyright. Such as data(bases), depending on where you live and which cases you look at. That is quite true, but it does not mean that map data is not covered by copyright. Nor does it mean that it is, for the reasons I have given. - 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] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 14:35, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: A 2/3 majority of what? When was a poll held? Your next paragraph suggests that you know when. Do you really think it's a valid poll where, for months, you're only allowed to say yes, and then even after you're allowed to say no, you can switch your mind until the answer is yes (at which point you can't change it back)? Yes, I do. And the numbers suggest that most people agree with me. This is besides the fact that the question being asked is not the right question in the first place. It is up to those asking the question to determine what question they would like to have answered. In this case, the people asking for a mandate to change the licence/copyright terms of the database we host are those directly involved in the hosting of said database. They have a right and duty to consider these issues and the mandate they seek will not prevent any of us from making use of today's data set in any way we were already permitted to do so. And besides the fact that I haven't been allowed to vote. In the old days they might have been plucking chickens and boiling up the tar. These days antisocial behaviour just gets you banned. There was no vote. Over 32000 mappers have agreed to a proposal. 387 have disagreed. If you choose not to consider this a vote, fair enough, but any longtime readers have had plenty of chances to form an opinion of your brand of logic. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ 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
2011/6/7 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: very probably that wasn't the official creative commons line, and he wasn't a lawyer, but neither have i seen his comments officially refuted by anyone at CC. .. or even disavowed :-) Even in the European Union, where there is considerably more harmony, this is not at all a settled question. The CJEU will be looking at at least one question referred from the UK on exactly what has happened to database copyright. The best, and most accurate thing, one can likely say is: some contributors may have intellectual property rights over some aspects of their contribution in some countries and some of those rights might be copyright and therefore fall under CC-BY-SA. -- Francis Davey ___ 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
Matt Amos zerebubuth@... writes: also the VP of science commons did say [2]: I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of share-alike you apply to your data. I've got a download of the OSM data dump. I can repost it, right now, as public domain. Thanks, that's interesting. Although he didn't in fact carry out his threat... -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Of 8,402,321 people eligible to vote, 8,357,560, or 99.5%, cast ballots--8,348,700 of which favored Hussein, the government said. There were 5,808 spoiled ballots. Luckily our licence vote is more transparent. Details on who said yes and no are available, so any irregularities will easily be found. Happy hunting! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ 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
Am i missing something ? Dermot is answering messages that are not on this list. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:53 PM Aan: Anthony CC: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Of 8,402,321 people eligible to vote, 8,357,560, or 99.5%, cast ballots--8,348,700 of which favored Hussein, the government said. There were 5,808 spoiled ballots. Luckily our licence vote is more transparent. Details on who said yes and no are available, so any irregularities will easily be found. Happy hunting! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ 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
2011/6/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: And what's the best, most accurate thing one can say under the ODbL/DbCL? Some contributors may have intellectual property rights over some aspects of their contribution in some places and some of those rights might be copyright and/or database rights. The ODbL might apply to some of that. The DbCL might apply to some of it. Additionally, some places might recognize clickwrap license agreements, which might mean that the ODbL might cover some aspects of some contributions of some contributors. That's a fair summary. It probably doesn't even need the qualification relative to clickwrap licence agreements. Starting the last sentence at The ODbL... The difference is - and I am not taking a position for or against - that more is caught by the ODbL worldwide than is caught by CC and, in particular, in the European Union and other places with the sui generis database right. That means that, where I am sitting ODbL may make a much bigger difference than it might do elsewhere. I say may because its just possible that UK database copyright with a low standard of originality survived the directive, which would make quite a difference. The CJEU has been asked. -- Francis Davey ___ 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
Yup, I said this: I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of share-alike you apply to your data. I've got a download of the OSM data dump. I can repost it, right now, as public domain. Said Matt Amos: very probably that wasn't the official creative commons line, and he wasn't a lawyer, but neither have i seen his comments officially refuted by anyone at CC. Nope, wasn't an official line. It was a point about how easy it is to extract and republish data if you want do do so, because of the inexact reaches of copyright, database rights, and contract. The point was to be provocative, not to make a threat. I'm not ever going to republish a copy of the OSM data dump, because that would be an asshole maneuver (which, as an American, is I believe the King's English phrasing). But someone who didn't care about being an asshole could do so, and the remedies are a lot less clear than they are in software and culture. If the asshole isn't in the EU, and didn't get a copy under contract, what do you do? That was my point - to make people think about that. CC also isn't Science Commons. We got absorbed last year by CC, and CC's a lot more about providing choices, not about being normative. Our job at SC was to be normative, to push for more open uses of the tools inside the CC suite of tools. That's why we didn't *recommend* the use of the licenses on data in the sciences, and I was kind of naive in jumping over into your community and yelling about those terms here. I apologize for that. This isn't a science community. It's not publicly funded. And I'm not part of it. I shouldn't have gotten onto the list and ranted without spending time getting to know the community. Indeed, i've done a little mapping since then even. So I backed out, and let you guys hash it out, and I worked out my differences with OKF via the Panton Principles (http://pantonprinciples.org)- public science data should be in the public domain - while I let CC take over the conversation about data licensing generally. I remain an advocate for the public domain for data, and a skeptic as to the ability to magically port the tools of free culture and free software to free data. But I'm a lot less stressed about it than I used to be. Part of that is that the capacity to create data is so great - data that doesn't get licensed well won't get well used, whatever the tools chosen - and part of that is the result of talking to a lot more people who are in open data outside the sciences. Keep on posting old text that I cited, as I won't run from my own words. We all own what we say on lists. As I said, I shouldn't have gotten on here and posted so rashly, but it is what it is. But also keep watching the CC site and blog for information, because CC is the only one that speaks for CC. Science Commons ain't the voice of CC for data, and never was, and it's our collective fault in both parts of the organization that we allowed that to happen (as Mike Linksvayer pointed out in a post earlier this year at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283). Back to lurking. jtw -- John Wilbanks VP for Science Creative Commons web: http://creativecommons.org/science blog: http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge twitter: @wilbanks ___ 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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, john wilbanks wilba...@creativecommons.org wrote: Yup, I said this: I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of share-alike you apply to your data. I've got a download of the OSM data dump. I can repost it, right now, as public domain. Dear Mike and John, I understand that Creative Commons declined to participate in drafting ODbL when invited. Why is that? Why the sudden interest in data now, after having declined the opportunity earlier? Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Remapping before license change (was Re: CTs are not full copyright assignment)
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We're planning to have most things remapped by CT supporters before we make the switch, so it will hardly be noticeable. How do you plan to achieve that in areas where there are not (m)any mappers on the ground? Not everything can be done through arm-chair mapping. My main concern with the license change process is the inevitable and unnecessary data loss for an uncertain and unnecessary improvement. Thanks, N. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Remapping before license change (was Re: CTs are not full copyright assignment)
Hi, Nakor Osm wrote: How do you plan to achieve that in areas where there are not (m)any mappers on the ground? Not everything can be done through arm-chair mapping. Yes, I'm sure that there will be problem areas. An area with little or no mappers on the ground is a problem area *even today*, but the problem will be pronounced if the single person who mapped something chooses to decline. My main concern with the license change process is the inevitable and unnecessary data loss for an uncertain and unnecessary improvement. Well if I were of the opinion that the improvement were unnecessary, I'd certainly not waste my time on this list. 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] Private negotiations
I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT. Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too? It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed by closed demands. LWG does of course publish minutes, as is right and proper, but there is currently no requirement for those writing to it to disclose their own demands. cheers Richard ___ 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
Richard said: I understand that Creative Commons declined to participate in drafting ODbL when invited. Why is that? Why the sudden interest in data now, after having declined the opportunity earlier? I don't speak for CC here, I speak for SC, which was far less integrated into CC than you might have imagined. It's why we eliminated the division and moved west. But we had our own Board, our own lawyers, our own staff, and we lived three time zones away from CC. And we didn't do a great job of being integrated. As for SC, we were involved in the first go round of what became ODBL. We were able to convince all involved to write a public domain tool instead (PDDL) and then the SC protocol on data came out around the same time. CC also decided as a result, in part from what integration we did have between science and headquarters, to rebuild its public domain dedication as two tools - one a legal waiver (CC0) and one as a public domain mark. Here's some background that I am at liberty to share. I wasn't the only one working in and around here, so I am only going to talk about the stuff I was involved in. First, there were differences in the European versions of the licenses that integrated database rights from other jurisdictions. After lengthy conversations in 2007 everyone agreed to turn those into waivers of the DB rights, so that if you use a jurisdiction specific EU 3.0 license, it should waive the DB rights. After that process, which was formally agreed to in 2007 at the Dubrovnik iSummit, we had to implement. That ate up a lot of what bandwidth we had for data rights. Second, in late 2007, a key SC employee who would have been essential to any work on any ODBL became gravely ill and was basically out of action for six months. When that employee was finally back, we were way behind on day to day work and didn't have a ton of bandwidth for projects that weren't funded, like our biological materials transfer and patent licensing projects. Third, after coming out with a strong statement against licensing data in the sciences, because our goal was interoperability, it would have been pretty hypocritical to then engage when people hired Jordan to start working on the revisions that became the ODBL (I believe that was actually OSM). I continue to think that the addition of a contract breaks interoperability - it certainly did so in the case of some core genomic databases - and that the creation and promotion of such a tool poses real risks in the sciences. I would rather work on getting OKF to discourage its use in the sciences, which is what Panton was all about for me. Panton basically says don't use licenses on publicly funded science data, including ODBL - or BY-SA. So it's not like we have a sudden interest in data. CC's had an interest from day 1, from MusicBrains to Freebase to Encyclopedia of Life. SC's had an interest from day 1. It's just that to this community in particular we managed to conflate those interests. It wasn't like we sat around and said hey, let's figure out ways not to work with the ODBL folks. We had very little time, lots of projects, not a lot of staff, and a lot of choices to make. We chose to put our time and effort at Science Commons elsewhere, and we weren't very well integrated with CC at that point either. When I was in a previous job, I heard an aphorism that stuck with me. Never assume malice when you can assume conference calls. That about sums it up. jtw -- John Wilbanks VP for Science Creative Commons web: http://creativecommons.org/science blog: http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge twitter: @wilbanks ___ 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
- Original Message - From: Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment On 2011-06-07 10:35, Ed Avis wrote: Frederik Rammfrederik@... writes: 3. OSMF to choose a new license that is free and open, present it to OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the 2/3 of mappers hurdle can hardly be called allow the board to tweak the license. The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence Why do you and some others think that the majority of the contributors are dumb sheeps who will sign everything? 1) Because I've seen postings to various OSM emailing lists along the lines of: (i) I trust OSM to get it right and so I just agreed to the CT;s (ii) I don't like the CT's but I want my data preserved in OSM so I felt I had to agree to the CT;s (iii) I'm not interested in legalities I just want to get mapping, so I agreed to the CT's; 2) Because there is very definite evidence that even though Nearmap derived data is not compatible with the CT's, many mappers who have used Neapmap in the past have agreed to the CT's So, Andreas what evidence do you have, that the majority of those who have agreed to the CT's, have given along a thoughtful consideration of all the issues involved, and having done so have come to a reasoned decision on whether or not they can agree to the CT's? Regards David OTOH if everyone agrees to a new CT it can't be that bad, can it? Bye, Andreas ___ 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
