On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote:
> If they want to release it under public domain they should just stick a > CC0 or PDDL license on it. This would be far simpler than trying to figure > out how a grant of rights to a third-party organization affects us, and > would allow the use of the data by anyone, including Wikipedia, without any > further work. > To be clear, I don't think going through OTRS makes a lot of sense in this specific case. But let me explain what OTRS is (not a grant of rights to a third-party!), and why an approach like OTRS's could be useful for OSM to think about in the future. OTRS's process is for *recording* a *public* license. If you submit material to OTRS through the process, what you're doing is explicitly stating, in a binding format, that you've agreed to publish the material under a public license. (Usually CC BY-SA, but no reason it couldn't CC0 or similar PD waiver.) It is not a grant to Wikimedia specifically. Our role is to keep the paperwork, so that if someone changes their mind later we can say "no, you made this grant; the grant was to the public, not just us; and it was irrevocable". Assuming a compatible license (like CC0) other people/groups, like OSM, should be able to rely on the statement about the license. This process tends to be used in the Wikipedia community primarily when there is some concern that the rights grant might not be genuine or well-understood. An example is when a celebrity wants to grant us rights to use their picture. The celebrity may not understand what they are giving up - that the license is to the public, global, irrevocable, etc. And they may not have other public means (like a website with licensing information) to make a binding promise through. So instead of them just saying off-the-cuff "yeah, sure, do whatever you want", we get them on the record that they are placing the picture under CC BY-SA. This protects both us and further downstream users (which, again, could include OSM when the statement is about a compatible license). The reason this might be relevant for OSM is that a similar process might be useful for governments and other big data donors. Ideally you want them to make a clear promise to the world on their website - "the license for data X is Y". But if for some reason they can't do that, there is a difference between a low-level bureaucrat saying "yeah, sure, do whatever you want" and the relevant bosses, lawyers, legislatures, etc. signing off and really agreeing to ODBL/CC0/etc. in a binding manner that the OSM community can rely on. I thought OSM already had such a process, but I don't see any mention of it in this thread, so I must be confusing it with something else. Hope that helps- Luis > > > *From:* Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:10 PM > *To:* Stephan Knauss > > *Cc:* Licensing and other legal discussions. > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential > datasource > > > > Oh i almost forgot. Well look, they could use the otrs for marking it as > public domain. I am sure you can modify the otrs text to include a special > text for osm as well. > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates > > > so just add in the osm text as well as the creative commons. make it multi > licensed. > > you might want to send them things about open public data initiatives : > http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/ > http://project-open-data.github.io/ > http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Open_Data_Policy > > mike > > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Stephan Knauss <o...@stephans-server.de> > wrote: > > If the data is creative commons we can't use it. We can't neither fulfill > the attribution nor is it compatible with the contributor terms which > allows changing the license. > > Stephan > > > > On April 19, 2014 5:19:54 PM CEST, Mike Dupont < > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: > > Well no, Mike, I don't think so. What rights a publisher grants to > Wikipedia has nothing to do with what rights a publisher grants to > OpenStreetMap. Wikipedia has no ownership interest in OpenStreetMap, > nor vice-versa. > > > > If wikipedia is granted rights, it is not exclusive, if the data is under > a public domain or creative commons then osm can use it. There is no data > on wikipedia except fair use pictures that cannot be used in osm. > > mike > > > > > > -- > James Michael DuPont > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org > Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion > http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com > Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
