Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
[Robert Kaiser, 11.08.2011, 21:17]: Most of us always agreed that our data is the data of the OSM project as soon as we contributed it, and that the project will always be able to use it. Some disagree apparently and make the life of the project much harder. Unfortunately it is not „the OSM project“ that will decide what happens with the data in the future. Many contributors who are important parts of the project will not be allowed to vote on future license changes. The sysadmins even reserve the right to remove voting rights from people by blocking their edit rights. See the definition of „active contributor“ in the CT to understand why. Members of both the sysadmins and of the legal working group are aware of this, but they have clearly stated that they do not want this to change. Loosing a few contributors (and their data) is regarded as a minor problem. My opinion is that the project consists of all people that contribute to it, and that all contributors should be acknowledged for their work. Some influential people disagree obviously, and this make the life of the project much harder. OIaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:50:40AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: Olaf What you are suggesting would have amounted to allowing every single pre-CT mapper a veto on the license change process. With something around 300'000 pre-CT mappers, this is obviously not just not practical, it is simply absurd. Nobody likes losing data and mappers, but it is unavoidable in a process involving so many people with so divergent views on the subject at hand. Up to now the pre-CT mappers have not even asked if a license change should happen at all, and WHICH license be switched to. The OSMF has decided that it would be best to switch and the best would be ODBL. There has been no Mapper/Contributer participation up to now ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
[Simon Poole, 12.08.2011, 11:29]: Your changes, as has been pointed out to you before, wouldn't have been backwards compatible with the initial CTs. And in reply, I pointed out how this problem could be solved. Just for the record: Both the wording of the CT and the behaviour of the sysadmins have disenfrachised me. I will never contribute to OpenStreetMap again (and not only because you are currently blocking my acount frpom contributing). Have you changed your mind (which I would consider quite legitimate) and do actually want to continue to contribute, or why are you even participating in this discussion? I responded to the Robert's implied claim that „the OSM project“ is identical with those that make decisions. I still consider myself very much a part of the project, even if I am unable to contribute. Olaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Robert Kaiser kairo@... writes: Well, IIRC that's exactly one of the points of the CTs, granting the OSMF the right to allow exemptions in some cases. Although the OSMF is sub-licensing the map and so could sub-license under any terms (including 'ODbL with the following list of clarifications'), in the contributor terms the OSMF promised to use a particular set of licences - and the CTs don't allow the OSMF to issue amendments or clarifications to the licences. So, in order for some clarification such as the exact meaning of 'produced work' to be adopted, it still has to be agreed by every contributor. (Or else, a 2/3 vote of active contributors would allow 'ODbL with clarifications' to be used as the official licence.) It's all a bit muddy. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb: [Robert Kaiser, 11.08.2011, 21:17]: Most of us always agreed that our data is the data of the OSM project as soon as we contributed it, and that the project will always be able to use it. Some disagree apparently and make the life of the project much harder. Unfortunately it is not „the OSM project“ that will decide what happens with the data in the future. Oh, but every self-respecting member of the project is who will decide. And as for the OSMF, I cite www.osmfoundation.org with The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share. I'm happy to grant some rights to my data to such a foundation so that I don't have to care about every legal bit myself. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: And as for the OSMF, I cite www.osmfoundation.org with The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share. That statement tell us how they would like it to work. In reality, they control the project: 1. The license 2. The lists, e.g. moderation on talk-au 3. The domains 4. SoTM and 5. The servers And I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as the community is properly represented on the board. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: On 12.08.2011 11:46, Florian Lohoff wrote: Up to now the pre-CT mappers have not even asked if a license change should happen at all, and WHICH license be switched to. May I remind you a litte bit on the history of the licence change... (all as far as I know) While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? The licence working group was founded 2008, everybody was invited to join. I didn't receive an invitation. If the OSMF wanted to hear all the different opinions on the license, they would not have formed the LWG, because legal-talk is a reasonable aggregation point for that. Actually we were asked to move some discussion from legal-talk to legal-general. So it's pretty clear that the issue was not going to be resolved through 'talk'ing or meetings. Next you are going to point me to the Pieren poll. The first problem there is that people who want PD cannot be assumed to be supporters. But, more importantly, only people subscribed to certain mailing lists knew of that poll. The question is pretty simple: Ask every active mapper (including those who have not accepted the CTs) if they think the benefits of the new license will outweigh the costs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 12.08.2011 11:46, Florian Lohoff wrote: [] BTW: looking on your wiki page you declare: = All my contributions to OpenStreetMap are released into the public domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/public_domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant anyone the right to use my contributions *for any purpose*, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. = So you declare that you don't matter what happens with you data: everybody can do anything he likes. This means the OSMF can take all your data and publish it under any any licence they want. Question: which problem do you have with the ODBL? You can accept the ODBL/CT and additionally check the PD flag = that's exactly what you want according to your Wiki page. BTW: to set the whole OSM database under PD is not capable of winning a majority = no choice. Best regards, Michael. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
