Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Tobias Knerr osm@... writes: * Inadequate protection * CC-BY-SA might not work for data. OSM data is not currently abused in a manner that threatens the project, and that might never even happen. Nevertheless, it seems wise to make sure that we can either prevent this or at least react when it happens. It is true that, by continuing to offer the database under CC-BY-SA, we would no longer /preemptively/ address this potential issue. I have commissioned a law firm in the UK, and one in the US, to investigate the extent to which this may be the case. I have asked them to look at whether the OSM map data falls under copyright, and additionally whether the contract- law provisions in the ODbL add anything to enforceability. The objective is to get analysis which can be shared with the whole community, rather than privileged legal advice which must remain confidential. This includes disclosing how the law firm was chosen and the questions asked. Making contributors agree to the CT gives us the ability to react *if* legal weaknesses of the CC-BY-SA are actually abused at some future point, though, and I believe that this is sufficient. Personally I agree with this (as with everything else you wrote) but some prefer a more aggressive approach. -- Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Yes, super interesting. Can we see the instructions and know the names of the firms (basically, are they an IP specific firm or big enough to have an IP speciality?) We could also run a donation drive to cover the costs if that would help? Steve On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:00 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/7/24 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: I have commissioned a law firm in the UK, and one in the US, to investigate the extent to which this may be the case. I have asked them to look at whether the OSM map data falls under copyright, and additionally whether the contract- law provisions in the ODbL add anything to enforceability. The objective is to get analysis which can be shared with the whole community, rather than privileged legal advice which must remain confidential. This includes disclosing how the law firm was chosen and the questions asked. Ed, this is really interesting news. When do you expect the results? cheers, Martin ___ 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] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Most of what you've said reads, to me, like an argument for licensing OSM under a non-sharealike licence - either true public domain or attribution-only. True. Similar arguments, taken to a more fundamental level, can be used to argue for more liberal licenses. However, the CT happen to already contain a statement that lets the OSMF publish the database under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is also a license that few current mappers should hate so much that they cannot stand to be part of a project that uses it. This means that CT + CC-BY-SA is quite cheap in terms of both effort and controversy. And it would eliminate the worst legal barriers our users would face with CT + ODbL-only. So couldn't we please add CC-BY-SA to the list of future OSM licenses first and _then_ start the debate whether or not CC-BY/PD/... would be an even better choice? I fear that a debate like that wouldn't go anywhere right now and I would hate to be stuck with ODbL at that point. Inadequate protection? Of course, PD or attribution-only offers none of this so-called protection. But if you're saying you're happy to stick with a licence whose provisions are generally believed to be of uncertain applicability to data[2], it seems to me much more _honest_ to offer the data on equal terms to all-comers, rather than the current situation where good guys abide by the letter of the licence and bad guys don't. Currently, we offer reasonable terms to good guys. Bad guys might be able to squeeze out a bit more in some jurisdictions if they can live with bad press and severed community ties. That doesn't happen a lot, though - as far as I can tell - and the possibility just doesn't bother me enough to let me prefer a solution like ODbL-only that makes life harder for the good guys, too. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Tordanik wrote: Currently, we offer reasonable terms to good guys. Bad guys might be able to squeeze out a bit more in some jurisdictions if they can live with bad press and severed community ties. That doesn't happen a lot, though - as far as I can tell - and the possibility just doesn't bother me enough to let me prefer a solution like ODbL-only that makes life harder for the good guys, too. I couldn't disagree more. I see plenty of bad guys taking advantage of OSM. I've catalogued elsewhere how OSM is being used without attribution, without share-alike, all the time. I only have to walk down to our village station to see an example of an OSM map being used improperly. They don't even realise there _is_ a community to sever ties with. I'm a good guy, I'd hope; I've given years of my life to OSM, and contributed a lot to the community (hardcore JOSM users may see fit to disagree ;) ). Despite that OSM offers nothing to me, because CC-BY-SA's share-alike clause is defined in relation to creative works, not to data. That means my particular niche (hand-drawn, highly specialised cartography, requiring days of work for a small set of maps) works fine with Ordnance Survey OpenData, but not with OSM. If I were someone writing routing software, whose endeavour is not caught within the arbitrary application of CC-BY-SA share-alike to OSM, I'm sure I'd feel differently. You said CC-BY-SA is also a license that few current mappers should hate so much that they cannot stand to be part of a project that uses it. For the past three years I've stayed here partly in the hope that we'll move to ODbL, and partly out of inertia because OS OpenData wasn't available three years ago. The day that it's decided that we're staying with CC-BY-SA is the day I quit the project. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-A-case-for-CT-CC-BY-SA-tp6613895p6616678.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
