Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Re-using ODbL for other, similiar project?
Please also consider using a simple permissive licence for your project such as CC0. You might find that the extra complexity of a big licence such as the ODbL is not worth it. It's your call - I just want to point out that alternatives are available (many of which are compatible with the ODbL for those using your data). The Creative Commons project also has several licences which they encourage as being suitable for data as well as for creative works. -- 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 Rob, thanks for your long., thoughtful email. There are a number of conflicting opinions in the OSM community: 1. Contributions to OSM should be public domain to achieve maximum usefulness. 2. The contributions to OSM should be guaranteed to never end up in proprietary databases if these were originally made under share-alike terms. 3. The OSMF and an arbitrarily defined subset of contributors should be free to decide upon future licenses, including a possible move to public domain. Neither of these opinions are ideology per se. They become ideology in the exact moment when someone says: None of the other opinions are valid, or: Only my opinion is allowed within the OSM community, or: If you are not blinded by ideology then you will have to agree that all other opinions are hurting the project. I have made the experience that it is not worth to participate in flame wars with people who refuse the mininum respect of acknowledging that other people might have equally valid reasons for their opinion. If the people on this mailing list had been more respectful of other opinions, then it might have been possible to convince me that the OSM community is likely to make the right choices in the future, and that I should trust them to do the right thing. What I see instead is that people refuse to deal with the real problems in the CT and are instead only interested in framing me as an ideologist. “Trust the sysadmins never to lock people out of the community, and we will lock you out until you agree” is a self-contradicting position. Another self-contradicting position is: “Trust the community to always make good license choices in the future. We will ignore your well-argued concerns and claim you to be an ideologist until you agree.” Olaf ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:57:19PM +1000, John Smith wrote: I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. I don't know any such thing as I'm not a lawyer - are you? If so, if would be great if you could state that as formal advice, if not, it would be great if you could get legal advice to that effect. s ___ 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 08.06.2011 18:59, schrieb Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer: Hi Grant, thanks for assuring me that the sysadmins have no interest in participating in behaviour that is harmful to the community. Does this mean that I will not be chucked out of the community by the sysadmins? I am willing to grant the OSFM + 2/3 of the community the right to relicense my contributions in the following ways: * the current versions of the ODbL and/or of the CC-BY-SA, * all past and future versions of the ODbL and/or of the CC-BY-SA, * all licenses that follow the Share-Alike/Copyleft principle, and * all other licenses if I am contacted and do not object within 6 weeks. I'm sorry, but as another contributor to the project I cannot accept that, since I find it unacceptable for you to have a say on data of yours that has since been modified so much your original contribution is barely visible. That would essentially make your contribution more important than all the other contributions. Just because you made the edit first does not mean anyone else of the later contributors couldn't have done so themselves. So I'd like to adapt your terms in a more fair way towards the other contributors possibly affected by your decision: |I am willing to grant the OSMF backed by a 2/3 majority of the |community the right to relicense my contributions, insofar as they are |not older than five years and largely unmodified in the current |version of the database, in the following ways: | |[same as above] | |For contributions that are older than five years or significantly |modified since my original contribution I will not object to any |license change voted for by 2/3 of the active community. This of course subject to refinement, but I think I made my point clear: old contributions are not per se more valuable than new ones, I'd say more the other way around, since it's the active mapping that brings the project forward, and decisions about contributions that have been improved over and over again should not be able to be vetoed by just one of the contributors. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E 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] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
- Original Message - From: ThomasB toba0...@yahoo.de To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:18 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file Dear Legal-list, My question applies to all kind of software that process OSM data but I am using Garmin maps as a popular example. Generating Garmin maps with contours is pretty easy and sometimes completely GUI driven. You select an OSM file, click a button and get a Garmin map. I have distributed such maps sometimes (for free) to some interested people who asked me. First thing to note, is that it is my understanding that the OSM file you refer to above is also a derivate database. In the background it downloads SRTM data from cgiar.org (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) and seeds that data into the OSM data. I think technically they are added as normal osm-ways with specials tags for the renderer. The cgiar data is non-commercial only (cc-by-sa-nc) licensed. The final Garmin map is rendered from a temporary file that contains both datasets and would constitute a Derivative Database. My point is that a user of software, and this is not limited to Garmin map software, may not know what a software does in the background i.e. if it is creating a (temporary) Derivative Database, a Collective Database or whatever. It is unrealistic that a user of software browses through the directories and check the content of the files there, particularly if the file exist only a short time during the process. So applying the ODbL rules to software generated temporary files would lead me to the conclusion that the solution is don't ask, don't mind. Although I personally could live with that I am not sure if it wouldn't be better to sort it out. The Trivial Transformations Guideline or Community Guidelines could be a good place to make it easier. I am neither a license expert nor a lawyer. From a practical point of view I would wish a clarification like: /Temporary software generated files used for the generation of a Produced Work or a Derivative Database that i) contain data from OSM, ii) may contain data from other (licensed) sources, iii) are only created and used for the purpose of the generation of one Produced Work or one Derivative Database, iv) will not be used for any purpose thereafter, v) will not be distributed or made publicly available do not constitute a derivative database, collective database or produced work/ But I am not sure about any other (unwanted) implication it may have. As far as I can see, ignoring your specific example, and genearlising, the unwanted implication of your clarification above would be that as long as someone deleted the derivate database they had created they could then claim it was temporary and therefore sidestep the requirements of the ODbL to distribute it. To avoid this you would thenhave to start defining temporary etc. Regards David Kind regards Thomas -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6504201.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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. OSM-F went down this path by their own choosing, how they handle data they haven't gained express permission from will indicate how far down the moral ladder things have sunk. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. I couldn't have said it better (and didn't want to even try add length to my post). This issue will most probably apply to especially other crisis areas (and especially where there's been further development after the tracing). But Kate's point is very right: It surely would be silly if we'd end up deleting data that has been merely traced (which is very easy to do again, albeit takes some time) but it would be especially annoying if roads that someone has surveyed properly afterwards the tracing (or have checked the road geometry from better imagery, for that matter -- something that I have done a good chunk here!) would have to be deleted (even though there might really well be much nothing original left in the current version). In any case the more I think of the idea of allowing users to license some areas differently the more I like it (even though this would most probably not be a desired option for those who are actually trying to figure out how to handle everything during the transition). Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh -- jaa...@helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154 * http://go.hel.cc/MyProfile ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google imagery and it wasn't till after the street names had been applied that someone found about the tracing, because that's where things are at, since you have no more permission to keep data contributed than if it was contributed from a tainted source. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Hi, On 06/22/11 15:18, ThomasB wrote: My point is that a user of software, and this is not limited to Garmin map software, may not know what a software does in the background i.e. if it is creating a (temporary) Derivative Database, a Collective Database or whatever. Yes. The software might well be proprietary, and so the user would not have a chance to really know. In today's operating systems, whether something is in a file or in memory is a boundary that might easily get blurred. It would be kind of strange if one algorithm that chooses to build a giant data structure in memory (using, for example, a lot of swap space) would be treated differently from another algorithm that does exactly the same, but writes its data out to a temporary file (which might be a database). I think that your attempt at solving this problem is a bit complicated but I don't have a brilliant idea either. We might just have to live with the fact that the same end product, created using different paths, may result in different ODbL requirements. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. And so, the question is actually pretty darned good: Why would OSM users not allow their contributions to help alleviate humanitarian crisis if even the big G did? And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko -- http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 03:37, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. Haiti is one small area, most of the time people that copy from google don't have permission. And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Why don't you urge OSM-F to stick with the current license, after all it's the OSM-F pushing for a license change that will end up causing data loss. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
- Original Message - From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls. On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. OSM-F went down this path by their own choosing, how they handle data they haven't gained express permission from will indicate how far down the moral ladder things have sunk. In this particular instance it may be unfair to blame OSMF, see my next reply to Jaakko David ___ 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] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
- Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Cc: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls. On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. And so, the question is actually pretty darned good: Why would OSM users not allow their contributions to help alleviate humanitarian crisis if even the big G did? I'm sure there are a number of people who have not agreed to the CT's who would be very happy to see their edits in Haiti retained in the OSM database, but for whatever reason are unable to agree to the CT's. The LWG to their credit asked earlier this year if the OSM community favoured per changeset relicencing, which might have helped in this instance. The answer of the OSM community was a resounding NO. So don't blame OSMF, don't blame LWG, don't blame individual contributors who have not agreed to the CT's. Its the fault of community ! Now I'm off out to do some mapping! Regards David And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko -- http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
