Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Rob Myers]

On 28/12/15 01:23 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 
> Perhaps continued copyleft fragmentation is even in the (near term
> anyway) interest of OSM in order to encourage all others to use
> maximally permissive licenses.

This wouldn't help OSM due to the contributor agreement.

- Rob.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Mike Linksvayer]

Indeed, CC-BY-SA-4.0 data at best would be as useful as ODbL data to
OSM under its current arrangements, ie not at all without agreement to
contributor terms.

Perhaps continued copyleft fragmentation is even in the (near term
anyway) interest of OSM in order to encourage all others to use
maximally permissive licenses.

I admit to somewhat reflexively adding info about compatibility when I
saw Tom Lee's message about exploring it without thinking about
whether it is a useful discussion to have here. Apologies!

Mike

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> Mike, my understanding of the process in question determines if
> adaptations of CC by-SA material can be licensed on terms of the
> compatible license.
>
> While it would certainly be possible to carry out such a process for the
> ODbL (that is if the licence related activities of the OKF were not a
> prime candidate for the well known Frank Zappa quote "Jazz isn't dead.
> It just smells funny"), from an OSM contributor pov  it doesn't make
> sense to tie our hands by using restrictively licensed material that
> would just have to be removed in the case of any change to our current
> distribution licence.
>
> Attribution only licences and explicit permissions given with
> attribution requirement are far less problematic, given on the one hand
> that we other attribution in the contributor terms and on the other
> hand, just for practical reasons, we will likely always have a licence
> with an attribution requirement.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 24.12.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Mike Linksvayer:
>> CC has a process
>> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria
>>
>> It has been followed for two licenses so far
>> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_FAL
>> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Tom Lee  wrote:
>>> Another update: I still haven't heard anything from the academic affiliated
>>> with CC with whom I had met, so I have to assume she's no longer interested
>>> in this project. That's a shame, but I know that OKFN is amenable to
>>> examining the question of compatibility more closely. I'll continue to look
>>> for ways to make this happen in 2016.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Andrew Harvey 
>>> wrote:
 Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that.

 On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole"  wrote:
> Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
>> I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC
>> BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in
>> Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways
> There might be a misunderstanding there, CC by is not going to be an
> option as long as we have a licence with a share-alike component. The
> only thing that we are discussing for now is attribution only input
> licences.
>
> Simon
>
>> if it were compatible with the ODbL.
>>
>> On 15 July 2015 at 00:22, Tom Lee  wrote:
>>> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've
>>> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either
>>> with
>>> formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the next
>>> license
>>> revision). That's on hold pending their availability at summer's end;
>>> stay
>>> tuned.
>>>
 To clarify a bit, any CC licenses that are ND or NC are non-open and
 clearly incompatible with the ODbL or any open license. CC BY SA 4.0
 is
 currently incompatible, but Creative Commons could change that.

 CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly  incompatible, thanks to the
 attribution requirements that can't be met.

 CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility.
>>> ___
>>> legal-talk mailing list
>>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

>>>
>>> ___
>>> legal-talk mailing list
>>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>> 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Simon Poole]

I would have to strongly agree with Robert. Matter of fact my position
is that we have in the past been too lenient in this respect and should
be much more strict going forward matching the growth of OSM and its
usage globally.

Unluckily the situation that IP law tends to be very territorial and OSM
very global (in that any data you have added will be used everywhere)
boils down to really only a small selection of input licences that are
acceptable.

I should note that the LWG hasn't discussed the situation in question
(for lack of being asked for one) and I personally haven't come to a
conclusion yet either.

Simon

Am 28.12.2015 um 11:19 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
> On 21 December 2015 at 16:48, Tom Lee  wrote:
>> The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
>> LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be cleared.
> I have to disagree here. OSM is not just about OSM's own use of the
> data, it is also about providing data to others under a standard
> licence. It is therefore imperative that any data contributed to OSM
> may be used freely by downstream users under the standard OSM licence
> (currently ODbL) without any additional restrictions. The bar that has
> to be cleared is not just that OSM's own use of the data is ok, but
> also everyone else's downstream use under the ODbL will be ok.
>
> I'm not making any comment as to whether the data under discussion
> meets this criterion, but if it's possible for some to take OSM data
> and re-use it under the ODbL and comply with all the ODbL terms, and
> yet still violate the original the terms of the supply, then it's not
> be ok to use that data in OSM.
>
> Robert.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Simon Poole]

Am 28.12.2015 um 14:46 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> that we other attribution in the contributor terms and on the other
>
That naturally should have been "that we offer attribution in the
contributor terms ..."



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk