Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki Mapia Mass Upload
many parks, commercial areas, and graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM Pre-fork or post-fork? That's one key question. On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 15.09.2013 13:25, Simon Poole wrote: a) some proof of this actually happening b) a pointer to who is doing it (if confirmed) I don't understand enough of Wikimapia to actually determine which account has uploaded what when, but a cursory glance at the link (OSM can be activated as a base map in tha layer switcher) seems to indicate that buildings look similar to OSM but not the same (my guess - both imported from same source?) while many parks, commercial areas, and graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? The intent of some may have been to use CC-BY-SA as though it were not a copyleft license (*), but I seriously doubt that was the intention of most of us. (*) To wit, Cloudmade seems to use it that way. The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Depends who the amateurs are. The interpretation of a single legal professional is fairly worthless, unless you've paid that legal professional for advice. Let's just wait until it goes to court, I say. It won't go to court. I'll be interested to see who is so incensed about OSM's data being combined with non-SA third-party data, and how they claim they are suffering losses by the third-party data not being made available to them under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. Like I said, my interpretation of the license - like everyone's - is guided by what we think the intent of it is. You can't just make up the intent without any regard to what the license says about what its intent is. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? Put another way, feel free to use the content of the people who chose to relicense under the ODbL, as if CC-BY-SA were the ODbL. But for the content of those of us who have *not* chosen to relicense under the ODbL, you need to respect that our intent was to release our work under CC-BY-SA, and not the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for content is unmodified that you can think of? I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase unmodified form in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). It couldn't possibly refer to the geodata, because the license is usable for more than just geodata. My take is that it refers to the separate and independent work. So that means you can make any modifications you want, so long as those modifications are CC-BY-SA. These modifications are made under the clause allowing you to make derivative works, not under the clause allowing you to use the work as part of a collection. It's only when you start adding non-CC-BY-SA works to the collection that you no longer can make modifications. Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? Yes. It seems clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose conditions, not to prohibit everything. I agree, and that's why I think my interpretation of what separate and independent means is correct. I think you have to look at the requirements of separate, independent, and unmodified together as a whole, not as independent requirements. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is more clear on this, though you could still argue that it has the same loophole. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote: And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe this could work as a collection. I think so. The main point that I would argue is that the modification of cutting out a corner is independent from the image. I suppose you could argue the same if you cut out holes from an OSM map, without knowing what you were going to put there, and then laid in copyrightable non-CC-BY-SA elements into the holes. Maybe technically legal, but definitely a subversion of the spirit of the license. How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA. We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however. I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and co-dependency - the question of does the overlaid stuff work without the map. So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share). Bye Frederik ___ 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] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he says If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each. However... Any rendering, whether to paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; One argument which could be used is that a rendering to a screen is not fixed, therefore it is not a derivative work. For a US case where this was successfully argued, see Galoob v. Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.). However, I believe there was a more recent ruling regarding website framing which largely limited the application of Galoob v. Nintendo to websites. if you take that as the meaning of modified, then there could be no unmodified renderings of any database, I agree. which means in turn that there could be no collective works, so the conditions about being separate and independent would be irrelevant. Did you read my earlier explanation? The rendered map is released under CC-BY-SA, and then *that* can be part of a collective work. Alternatively, the database, as it exists on disk, is a collective work with the other files on disk being other works which are part of the collection. There's no bar against collective works. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 02/02/11 18:49, Jonathan Harley wrote: For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to paper or to a screen, changes the bits used The difference is who makes the work. If you have an image comprising two separatable layers - say, an OpenLayers map with a CC-BY-SA source and a proprietary source - then both these images are published by the people operating the servers (may be the same server, may be different servers). You have two images, with different licensing, and it is *you* who combines them, using software that runs on *your* computer, into one rendering. If *that* rendering was now published, it would certainly have to be CC-BY-SA (say if you make a screenshot or a print). However, the people you get the images from do not publish that rendering; they publish two distinct images, licensed differently, which is totally ok. There's no way that would ever hold up in court. For one thing, I don't think you're right that the person doing the combining is the person who visits the website, or the person who owns the computer which does the combining. Rather, I'd say the person doing the combining is the person who instructs the computer to combine the images, in other words, the people you get the images from. Furthermore, even if the direct infringer *was* the person who visited the website, the person who wrote the website to facilitate the infringement would still be guilty of contributory infringement. The only way to get around infringement in the case of layers is to successfully claim 1) that no derivative work is produced (probably under the argument that the combined work is not fixed; or 2) that the license permits the particular combination. Of course, the real issue here is that we're talking about infringement for which the actual damages are miniscule, and for which statutory damages probably aren't available (as the work has not been registered). That's the difference between print (where the image is already combined for you, and published in combined form) and a layered web application (where it is you, through certain instructions you give to software running on your machine, who creates the derived work by superimposing the images). Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does. If you wrote a website which intentionally caused the computer of the person visiting it to overheat, catch on fire, and burn down a building, the person guilty of arson wouldn't be the person who visited the website, it'd be the person who wrote the website. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Anthony wrote: Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts. and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Alright, so, here's what they've said: We occasionally encounter a misimpression that CC licenses can’t be used for data and databases, or that we don’t want CC licenses to be used for data and databases. This is largely our fault Data and databases are often copyrightable. When licensed under any of our licenses, the license terms apply to copyrightable data and databases, requiring adaptations that are distributed be released under the same or compatible license terms, for example, when a ShareAlike license is used. CC licenses can and should be used for data and databases, right now (as they have been for 8 years) — with the important caveat that CC 3.0 license conditions do not extend to “protect” a database that is otherwise uncopyrightable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position that scientific data should be licensed CC0? Mike's comments seemed to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see how cartographic facts are not scientific data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position that scientific data should be licensed CC0? Mike's comments seemed to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see how cartographic facts are not scientific data. Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression half of the idea/expression divide. This would level the playing field between different jurisdictions, while remaining a pure grant of permission and without resorting to imposing extra restrictions on people beyond what the law specifies. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression half of the idea/expression divide. Ugh, sorry for the imprecise language (this is why I'm thrilled CC's lawyers are finally looking at this). By does not cover, I mean that it provides license to use any facts and ideas contained in the work without restriction. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote: Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing! To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in the open source / community space all seem to have a very healthy balance between individual contribution and private contribution/investment. I think the share-alike requirement is killing the potential for growing a private ecosystem. In my opinion there aren't that many sustainable business models in this space where companies can freely share their data. If you do that, then eventually someone will copy your data and business model. With your differentiation factor gone, you'll be out of business pretty soon. I think the same could be said of Wikipedia, and in fact there are very few companies successfully making a business model out of taking Wikipedia content. Of course, that doesn't seem to be hurting Wikipedia, which is a project to create a free encyclopedia, not a project to help people make money off their non-free encyclopedias. Likewise, OSM is, or at least was, a project to make a free editable map of the world, not a project to help people make money off their non-free maps of the world. Unlike some in the OSM community I don't think there's anything wrong with you wanting to make a profit off your maps and/or map data. But I also don't think helping you do so is any part of the goal of the OSM project. Fortunately for you OSM is changing to a license which is much more favorable for exploitation by businesses. Ask this question again in a few months when and if the project has adopted the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is not directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project. Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I'm thrilled to see that CC seems to be distancing itself from this position. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] current license terms
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. What are the current license terms? Right now it means, what, CC-BY-SA? And after the CC-BY-SA content is removed it means ODbL and DbCL? At what point, if any, does the database become one where OSMF can't switch back to CC-BY-SA without removing data? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years time Database rights only last 15 years, though, and facts can't be copyrighted. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: John Smith wrote: On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at the end of it Yes, I remember - he used this example to show that majority relicensing is not a natural consequence of a collective effort. But that was never quite my point. Relicensing through majority /does/ make sense for a collective effort if the intention is to be actually able to perform a license change. Sure. But it's not my intention that OSM be actually able to perform a license change. I haven't been sold that the ability to change licenses, as opposed to the ability to upgrade to a new version of the same license, is more important than the principle of, as you put it, individual data ownership. As I've agreed in the past, it is indeed a fundamental philosophical disagreement. I am a strong believer that individual ownership, as opposed to collective ownership, produces the best and most fair results. I don't believe that large groups of people, acting collectively via voting, make good decisions about licenses. And, in fact, I think you will find that even among successful projects which have delegated license decisions away from the individual contributors, that the vast majority of them have delegated those decisions to individuals or to very small groups/boards/committees, not to the membership at large or to the contributors at large. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not guaranteed a right to contribute. [] But what could we do? Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing terms. Even an opt-out arrangement would be better than the current one, where 2 people with 1 edit each get to override 1 person with 10,000 edits. +1 On the surface that would seem to give a better indication of if a license change should be adopted or not, but I agree with Frederik's point that pointless or abusive edits shouldn't make someone be eligible as an active contributor either when it comes to influencing major changes... What if those 10,000 edits were duplicating ways simply to up their stats so as to have more influence over things... Then you let them opt out and don't worry about it. If their ways aren't useful, then they don't have any more influence over things. I never suggest weighting votes by number of edits. That wouldn't work for much the reason you've explained above. You can't come up with an algorithm for measuring quality of edits, but if you let people opt-out of changes, then the OSMF board can decide on the quality and weight of those edits, and whether or not they outweigh the need to switch to the new license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Such an opt-out clause would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it at any time. On the rest, we're going to just have to agree to disagree. But I think this depiction of an opt-out clause is quite unfair. An opt-out clause doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at any time. In fact, it doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at all. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Anthony wrote: Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing terms. It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data ownership. Correct. Sort of. I insist on not using the idea of collective ownership. More on what I mean by that in my final paragraph. The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between my data, your data and their data. As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective, not individual, decisions. That most certainly is not a natural consequence of a collective effort, though. When people collaborate on a film, for instance, they are making a collective effort, but they don't then allow a majority (or supermajority) to relicense the film under any license they deem appropriate. And besides, there is another alternative to individual ownership and collective ownership, and that is no ownership. If we don't want individual ownership, that's fine with me, but that means the data should be public domain. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-23 04:14, Anthony wrote: I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear license? This would be one point for them to clarify. Good point. I think the discussion here on the mail list is not leading to a clear license because we all are just interpreting and guessing. I've mostly posted questions, which so far have not been answered. I made a couple comments about how I understood the license (when I first read it), but I intended that as an explanation of areas that needed clarification if they differed with the intent. Actually I thought Frederik had some inside information which led him to the conclusions he made. Wouldn't it be better to tell Bing your special case/your questions? They have a legal department which should know what they want and with the questions they get feedback that their license isn't that clear as they probably thought it is. I guess I could pose the questions to Bing, but really I don't think it's efficient for me to talk to Bing directly. If there is someone on the OSM side who would like to gather up questions/comments to send to Bing, I'd be happy to relay mine. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted to OpenStreetMap. And how do believe they achieve that? Through copyright law? Through contract law? Through some other mechanism? Would an ODbL fork be allowed? What permits it? The only way I can see interpreting the TOS such that contributions to OSM are allowed, is that Microsoft is taking the (correct) position that the copyright, if any, on then ways produced by using the aerial maps, is owned by the person doing the mapping. Basically, this seems like another case of IP protection via wishful thinking. If your interpretation held up in court, it really would be quite horrible for the world. Anyone could stop everyone else from using facts about the world, by simply claiming that they can. Maybe this is already true in some backward countries, but I'd imagine most of the world is much more sane than that, and I believe that the part of the world I live in surely is, at least for the time being. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from openstreetmap.org(dump maybe) under it's then license. (is my interpretation) So I need permission from OSM to redistribute my own contributions? This interpretation (or at least, the acceptance of it as something OSM would want to do) is truly evil. I only wonder how widespread it is among OSM contributors. I hope in good faith that it is held by very few. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-22 01:24, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. Of course you can, but at your own risk - although I'm with you that it's very small. But as long as there is no court rule nobody knows for sure :-). I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear license? This would be one point for them to clarify. Bing explicitly says it's ok for contributing to OSM. I'd say it's implicit, rather than explicit. They say you must contribute the data to OSM, which implies that they give you permission to do so. I guess the license doesn't explicitly state whether or not others are then allowed to modify or redistribute that contributed data, be they forks, or mirrors, or Bing competitors, or otherwise. But Frederik's comment (which I guess he has now withdrawn since he says he doesn't want to think about it) is the first suggestion I've heard that maybe we aren't. On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anthony, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted to OpenStreetMap. And how do believe they achieve that? Through copyright law? Through contract law? Through some other mechanism? Frankly, I don't care, and since I do not intend to get actively involved in any fork, I'll not waste my time thinking about what *they* will be allowed to do. That's perfectly fine, but if you don't care to think about it, don't make statements about what a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to do. Anyway, the community in that fork can set their own bounds of what they consider acceptable. They can even trace from Google and build on the assumption that nobody will come after them. I am sure that Microsoft has allowed data to be traced for OSM; I don't believe it is their intent to allow tracing of data for other purposes but (a) I may be wrong, (b) someone could always say that their intent doesn't matter anyway. It isn't relevant to me, or to OSM. If you don't consider it relevant to you, that's perfectly fine with me. But how people are allowed to reuse data that they contribute to OSM certainly is relevant to OSM. OSM stands for *Open* Street Map. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works under any particular license, over and above what was already there. That's probably a combination of the fact that Microsoft doesn't own that right in the first place and the fact that tracing a map doesn't create a derived work. If we couldn't do it before, we can't do it now, but that also implies that if we can do it now we were also allowed to do it before, although we may not have had the right to use their API and/or an application to do that. Not quite true. Before it may have been a violation of the TOS. Now it quite clearly isn't. Nothing to do with copyright law, but as was said, better than what OSM has with Yahoo, which is basically the same thing without any of it being in writing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it. Then show why I'm wrong, don't say that I may be right in some jurisdictions and you aren't sure if I'm right in others. For example in Germany simple Lichtbilder (which would include areial photographs) have the same protection as photographic works of art (Lichtbildwerke) with the exception of the proctection term. And there is at least one German higher court judgement in which tracing a non-artistic photograph was considered copyright infringement None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the definition of that term. And the license being provided by Microsoft isn't even governed under the laws of Germany anyway. If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see that it said that the Microsoft license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works. It didn't say anything about Lichtbilder laws in Germany. PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right now is going on in -Germany- And that matters why, exactly? Why would Microsoft issue a license, governed under the laws of the US, giving people permission to do something which is not restricted under US law, and is not something which Microsoft owns the rights to anyway? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the definition of that term. It's extremly unlikely that a German court would use English :-). Well yeah, exactly. When I say that probably...tracing a map doesn't create a derived work, I certainly don't preclude the fact that some German law might impose some copyright-like, but not actually copyright, restrictions on the results of such tracing. Though I have yet to see any evidence that it does. But in the specific case they did considered the derived work, the German equivalent of a derived work. What case are you talking about? It wasn't one where someone was tracing an aerial photograph, was it? What is the German equivalent of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how can you say it's equivalent? It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial photograph is a derivative work. PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right now is going on in -Germany- And that matters why, exactly? Because: If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see that it said that the Microsoft license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works. Does MS even have the rights to grant such a license in Germany? Do they have the rights to grant such a license in the US? I doubt it. If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of the image, which is probably not Microsoft. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote: What is the German equivalent of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how can you say it's equivalent? Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions adaptation rather than derived work. Your referring to derived work is therefore the use of an equivalent concept in your own legal system. You mean the US legal system? The US code uses the term derivative work (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103), as does much of the case law. It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial photograph is a derivative work. If there isn't a copyright in the original, work that copies from it cannot infringe that copyright because it doesn't exist. Sure, but the reverse is not true. There can be copyright in the original, yet a work that copies (non-copyright parts) from it do not infringe that copyright. That is probably the situation with OSM-style tracing of aerial photographs. If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part of it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent concept) it will infringe on that copyright. I'm not sure if we disagree on substance, or if it's just a terminology thing. How would you reconcile that statement with Bauman v Fussell? There was copyright in the original. A recognisable copy of some part of the original was made. Would you call it a case of fair dealing? Now if you're talking about tracing ways from photos I would agree, philosophically, that it is a leap to regard those as derivatives. Yes, that is what I was talking about. Isn't that what this thread is about? But if it's a leap the courts have made or that companies with more lawyers than OSM've got have made then that's what we have to deal with. Is it a leap the courts have made? If it's just something being claimed by companies with more lawyers than OSM've got, then how should we deal with it? If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of the image, which is probably not Microsoft. You need a licence from someone with sufficient rights to grant you that licence. Which in this case is Microsoft. What makes you think Microsoft has sufficient rights to grant that license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote: Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach 66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%: An 'active contributor' is defined as [someone who] has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. Right, I apologize. I was remembering that we have about 15000 active contributors but actually we have just that amount of potentially active contributors. Easy mistake to make when an agreement defines a term in a way which completely contradicts the plain language meaning of the term. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Also, the idea that the vote could be conducted via email is rather humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the hanging chads in that scenario. I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any other electronic means. Maybe it worked for usenet, but that was back when having an email address was a sign of intelligence. Besides the obvious problem of parsing the various responses to determine intent, there's also the issue that email is completely insecure and the question of how to handle contributors who have multiple accounts under different email addresses. There are of course problems, but then so are there with paper ballots as we all know. I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either. What would you suggest? I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I haven't already voted under another account, and click Yes or No. Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing the vote could manually check for and rule on invalid votes due to ballot stuffing. Something like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I haven't already voted under another account, and click Yes or No. Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing the vote could manually check for and rule on invalid votes due to ballot stuffing. Something like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote I should add that I think it's a terrible idea in the first place. Especially with the threshold for eligibility being so low (essentially one edit every 4 months). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. 2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling he's crazy! - can you clarify what you mean? It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have to vote yes, or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. There's no such thing as legalese as I've said before. The CT's don't say 67% they say 2/3, which is completely clear. The phrase at least a 2/3 majority vote has a pretty clear and unambiguous meaning. It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote: We got new licences to choose from that countered “Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them. They can. But the lead developer doesn't want to. The fact that he isn't forced to move against his wishes is a feature, not a bug. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors (electorate). While a theoretical, I simply do not see it happening. But that's the current plan (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan). PHASE 3 - Existing Contributor Mandatory Re-licensing (Phase 2 + 5 or 10 weeks). Surely if it happens once, it'll happen again. If OSM switches to CT 1.2 in 2011, then switches to CT 2.0 in 2012, then switches to CT 3.0 in 2013, people who agreed to CT 1.2 but not to CT 2.0 won't get a chance to vote in 2013. OSMF would end up with a rapidly ageing dead copy of the database and we the contributors would move onto a new-OSM. That might just be what happens. But whenever someone says that, they get accused of spreading FUD. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Rob Myers schrieb: Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand? I do apologize. The formatting in the email I used made it appear that was a quote from Anthony. I also apologize to Anthony. I'm just more confused now. The claim being made by you and Robert seems to be: 1) OSM is PD in some jurisdictions. 2) ODbL somehow makes it not PD in those jurisdictions. The argument for this seems to be: 1) I've read this from people I trust. 2) It's on the list. My counter is: 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. Only Congress can do that. 2) When you slap a license on something that is public domain, it's still public domain. If a work is in the public domain you cannot claim a copyright in it. (http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html) Once in the public domain, it is always in the public domain. (http://www.public-domain-image.com/public_domain/public_domain.html) ...there is nothing anyone can do to move a work out of the public domain... (http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/348) If I'm misrepresenting your claim, please let me know. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that you received it. Share alike was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain English, as If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) The context of alter, transform, or build upon is that which creates a derivative work, as opposed to that which creates a collective work. Creative commons has created its own, international, definition, but it roughly mirrors the US definitions (see http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html). The concept of share alike embraces and extends the earlier concept of copyleft. The term copyleft is defined by the FSF as a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/) Share alike works, unlike copylefted works, don't have to be free. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is free and open. I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority (perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too* often these days. I've started a discussion of this at http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Open_Database_License Specifically, I question whether or not ODbL satisfies the second criterion: [quote]The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict reverse engineering.[/quote] ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind) make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different terms you like, right? Not necessarily. If the work is ineligible for protection under the law (for instance, in the US if it is not copyrightable), then you can't put it under any different terms you like. That said, I personally would have no problem if we'd have our data be PD in all jurisdictions, and I have no problem with having the same share-alike-type terms in all (major) jurisdictions. What I have a problem with is if we provide a significantly different playing field dependent on where in the world you are. A geographical database with geographical unfairness somehow feels wrong to me. ;-) Then you should be in favor of CC-BY-SA 3.0 with an explicit waiver of the database right and an explicit waiver of sweat-of-the-brow copyright protection. ODbL, with its three areas of protection (copyright, database right, and contract law), offers three different places for geographical differences. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Ed Avis schrieb: Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of how active contributors are defined? There's not a clear definition of how 67% is defined, though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but IANAL, so I really can't explain details. Okay, well, I'm just letting you know that you're wrong. A contract doesn't apply to people who haven't accepted it. If you can't show why something is true, you really shouldn't be basing your arguments on it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Anthony: Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. I think you're confusing me. I'm not the one claiming that data is PD in some jurisdictions. Robert Kaiser is. He said We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P It wasn't my claim, so I don't know what jurisdictions he was talking about. And to be more specific, I don't believe there is any jurisdiction in which OSM, in its entirety, is PD. I do know that unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States. But I also know that OSM is not merely an unorganized collection of facts. Certain excerpts of it are, but not the entirety. Finally, to explain my point, unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States *regardless of whether or not you try to pretend they aren't by slapping the ODbL on top of them*. A contract is not binding upon people who have not accepted it, and there is absolutely no way OSM can force everyone who gets a copy of OSM to accept a contract. Even if they forced everyone who downloads OSM from planet.openstreetmap.org to click on I agree, they can't stop third parties from running mirrors where there is no such click-through. Failing that, have a read of the previous conversations on this subject that you have participated in on this list and let us know what you are pretending not to understand this time. What subject would that be? Can you narrow my search? Or were you just misunderstanding my point? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding principle. OSMF was created to support the project, not be the project. What's the alternative? One alternative is status quo. Each person owns his/her contribution, and licenses it to OSMF under CC-BY-SA. Another alternative, which is probably preferable, is for each contributor to grant OSMF permission to sublicence their contributions under CC-BY-SA. Another alternative is the situation which was presented in the original CT, which was the one which was voted on by the OSMF members - everyone who receives the data receives the same license as OSMF. I'm sure there are others which could be come up with after setting the principles. As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. The copyright? The database right? Something else? Who owns Wikipedia? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data. And, in fact, under the current proposed CT, the OSMF would *not* own the database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. The copyright? The database right? Something else? I mean the database right. For the european database directive (which is a protection for the investment into the database and not for the data (Leistungsschutzrecht in german)) you need someone who owns the database. Then no one should own the database right. The OSMF certainly should not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the OSMF. And it's not really any better for the OSM community as a whole to own the database right, especially under a one person, one vote scenario. Why should two people who contribute one node a month be able to override the wishes of one person who contributes 10 million nodes a month? So the only viable solution, IF the database right cannot be held by the individual contributors, is to waive the database right altogether. This also has the advantage of creating a situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to people in other jurisdictions. In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*? How do the CTs change this? Who owns Wikipedia? I think there is a big difference between a project like Wikipedia (where the single texts are copyright protected) and OSM (where most/all of the data is not copyright protected). Agreed. But that doesn't answer my question. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Or maybe Frederik can answer it: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000839.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote: The OSMF certainly should not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the OSMF. I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF I never said that more contributors should be members of the OSMF. In fact, I don't believe that more contributors should be members of the OSMF. People should only be members of the OSMF if they care about the functions of the OSMF, which is to *support* OSM, not to control it. And it's not really any better for the OSM community as a whole to own the database right, especially under a one person, one vote scenario. Why should two people who contribute one node a month be able to override the wishes of one person who contributes 10 million nodes a month? In your example it looks bad for the one person but in general I'm not afraid of a 2/3 majority. That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority. This also has the advantage of creating a situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to people in other jurisdictions. As long as there are no common world rules there will always be differences. True, which is why I painted this as a secondary advantage, and not the primary principle. In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*? That's the problem, nobody really knows. I would guess the owner of www.openstreetmap.org. Wouldn't that be the OSMF? How do the CTs change this? The make clear that OSMF claims the right for the database. The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first place. The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database right. (*) Is something like 1.2 going to be the next version of the CT? Is it just a proposal, or has the decision to modify the CT been made and only the details need to be sorted out? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote: That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority. But then why do you contribute to an community project like OSM? Because it's fun, because it's educational, and because when I map my area of town and you map your area of town, and then we combine those maps together, we both get better maps. Don't misunderstand me, I respect your individualism. But I don't think that a collaborative database is possible if every contributor puts his ego first. Well, I'd say pretty close to the exact opposite is true. But that's really a discussion for another list. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first place. I think there's some mistaken use of terminology here, which may be confusing some people (even if not you). As it stands 1.2 grants a licence to use the contributed data in any way restricted by the database right (or copyright). It does not grant the right itself. OSMF does not become the owner of the right as a result. There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that view, but other views are more problematic. As you know database right law is still in its infancy, so its hard to be sure. The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But I'm not sure that is clear at all. I'd certainly think there's a good arguable case that the contributors jointly own a database right in the map data. Okay, yes, you're quite right about this. I guess I went too deep into the let's assume temporarily that it really isn't possible to have collective database rights, even though I'm not sure whether or not this is the case. you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database right. That is the position under CT 1.2. Maybe technically, but it's rather useless without a license on everyone else's portion of the database, for which we are all, under the CT 1.2, dependent upon OSMF to grant, and under which the OSMF only promises (if anything at all) to grant under some free and open license which was agreed to by 2/3rds of active contributors. And considering that the very first license OSMF intends to use, the ODbL, isn't even one that I'd consider free and open (due to its restrictions on the use of factual information), that's not acceptable to me. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license Free according to whom? Open according to whom? * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor As was pointed out in another thread, nothing stops OSMF from selectively locking out certain individuals so that they cannot remain active contributors. To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. I think that 3 would have to be 10, though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no interpretation where the footing is equal or identical, but I see what you mean. Okay, true. I still think it accomplishes something very important which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA. OSMF doesn't get any special rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have. My understanding was that this was not the intended outcome - that is that OSM data should not be freely usable by everybody who receives it. You must know more than I do, because I don't think you can speculate on the intent of a phrase without at least knowing who added it. It very well may have been added precisely for the effect of making everything effectively PD. I know that's the only reason I supported CT 1.2, though I wasn't dumb enough (this time) to point it out. As I have already said, I'm not sure that your interpretation is 100% certain. The CT's at the moment place an obligation on OSMF to licence under one of a series of licences, which would be an odd requirement if such a licence were superfluous. It's not superfluous, because the obligation on OSMF is to license the contents *as part of a database*. The ODbL applies to *the database*, not the contents. (In some/most/all jurisdictions, if you don't agree to it, you can probably ignore it, because there aren't any rights in the database. But probably in at least some jurisdictions you can't ignore it, due to sui generis database rights and/or sweat of the brow copyright in the database itself). Yes, it makes the DbCL part superfluous, but as I've explained before the DbCL, if *it* does not make the work effectively PD, is itself superfluous. And if you look at the history, the DbCL language was added at the same time the and any party that receives your contents was taken out (http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=231oldid=204 which, by the way, was *after* the vote). In any case, even if the requirement were superfluous (which, as I explained, it isn't), I don't see any alternative explanation. (*) It has been pointed out previously that we should probably *require* OSMF to release the database under a free license, rather than merely *allow* them to, but as it stands they may, but don't have to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. If you spent more than 34 seconds thinking about it you'd realise that the best possible route for [Steve Coast] would be Public Domain so he could do whatever he wanted. Really. Think about it. - Steve Coast ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How could it be an accident? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How could it be an accident? I'm a member of Licensing Working Group... I haven't followed this whole thread yet, but if there is a mistake it is a cocked up, not malicious. Just to clarify, I don't claim or even believe there was any maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT. However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, unintended consequences are unenforcible. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, unintended consequences are unenforcible. And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say that I don't claim or even believe there was any maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Personally I'm delighted that Bing is happy to work with us, and I think their attitude to permitting tracing without claiming a share in any (allegedly) resulting IP reflects very well on them when compared to Google and to some imagery providers. Hopefully OSM will display the same attitude toward the forks tracing from OSM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 12/01/2010 02:31 PM, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org Isn't http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the prior written consent from Microsoft. I'm not sure it is, or certainly if it is enough. Anthony's weaponized literalism What a fantastic phrase! What can I say? Figuring out what legalese actually means, and using that meaning to its maximum advantage, is what I do for a living. There’s no such thing as a technicality or a loophole. The law is the law. If you find that it's the law, call it what you want, it's the law! - CrowJD, paraphrasing law professor Donald Wilkes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's the fact that we have an actual documentation of the permission to trace. Yahoo's is pretty much just an unwritten/informal agreement. Except that at the point we don't. At this point, we have an unclear agreement which an employee from Microsoft says gives permission to trace. Which is the same as what we have in the case of Yahoo, except that Yahoo's agreement (the terms of service) is not specific to openstreetmap.org. And most importantly, in neither case (Microsoft nor Yahoo) is there any statement at all by the copyright holder of the actual imagery. This only works because (or if, or to the extent that) tracing does not create a derivative work in the first place. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an equal footing with OSMF. Could you : a) explain the above last paragraph; and b) define us; is it OSM contributors, OSM data users, or some other us Us would be every party that receives a copy of OSM, contributors or non-contributors. Under the proposed CT 1.2 (*), everyone who receives a copy of OSM has the same rights. OSMF doesn't have special rights which the rest of us don't have. (*) ...as I last read it. There have in the past been changes made to the CT 1.2 without incrementing the version number, so I have no idea what it *currently* says. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:34 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Whereabouts is the prior written consent from Microsoft which would enable us to trace and thus create derivative works? David [1] http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details Isn't http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the prior written consent from Microsoft. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, fx99 wrote: 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, . can somebody explain to me, who is meant by any party that receives Your Contents ? Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads your contents from the OSMF servers? How does this grant interact with 3? Without 3 it would effectively PD the data wouldn't it? Even with 3 it will effectively PD the data. Damn. I was hoping no one was going to notice that before the terms went into effect :). I appreciate that the DbCl effectively does this as well, and that in both cases the ODbL is what adds the share-alike; I'm just checking. ;-) You can't add share-alike to something which is already public domain. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Why is the data protected?
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Isn't the content the users provide just facts (at least the coordinates, some tags could be questionable)? I don't think it's quite that simple. If I draw a complex intersection on a piece of paper, that's not a fact, but an expression of a fact. Likewise, if one creates a complex intersection in OSM, I'd argue that it's no different from creating it on a piece of paper. It's an expression of (a large number of) facts. Is the expression obvious? In most cases, probably. Just trace down the center of the road, right? To the extent that's all people do, even the expression, while not purely factual, is uncopyrightable (*). But then, add in a merge between two roads. Ask 10 different people to map that situation, and I bet you get more than 2 different answers. When do you start the merge? When do you complete the merge? Try it different ways some time, and see how it renders. Or just look at the OSM data at onramps/offramps and notice how different people chose different ways to express the facts. I think the answer is that the substance of OSM is almost completely factual. But there's that other tiny fraction of content which I'd say is copyrightable (*). So I think it would be wrong, legally as well as morally, for OSMF to simply ignore the underlying license. (*) Probably, in most jurisdictions. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: I would argue now that before the new CT (since March 2010 if I'm right) there wasn't a real CT at all (for me the simple sentence used is just too vague and let many questions unanswered). Therefore I think even if you have any problems with the new license, as a mapper, you should welcome the new CT if you want that OSM in future is build upon a stable fundament. I would welcome *a* new CT, along with the old CC-BY-SA. Both the 1.0 and 1.2 CTs have problems, though. A proper CT would be something like: 1) Everything you submit is either completely owned by you or on a list of exceptions deemed by OSMF to be compatible with OSM (**). 2) You grant OSMF with a license to your contents under CC-BY-SA (2 or later), and you further grant them permission to sublicense your contents under CC-BY-SA (2 or later). 3) OSMF grants you (and everyone else in the world) a license for the entire contents of OSM, under CC-BY-SA (2.0). 4) OSMF promises to always license everyone's submissions under CC-BY-SA (2 or later). The purpose of this CT is to help alleviate the questions about chain of title which otherwise would plague (and except for the CT, currently do plague) the ability of commercial users to use OSM. CT 1.0 goes too far, to the point where it is being blatantly ignored. CT 1.2 doesn't go far enough, as a vague I think my stuff is compatible and you can remove it if it isn't provides little assurance at all. Maybe something in-between, in the form of a list of exceptions, editable only with OSMF approval, would be doable. (**) Exceptions would mainly be imports from people/organizations which themselves agreed to the CT, or compatible data where the chain of title was extremely clear (e.g. data collected by a government entity, released as PD or CC-BY). In extreme cases, exceptions might be made for imports from sources which didn't agree to the CT, because to not allow them would greatly hinder OSM (e.g. if a major player forked OSM and refused to sign the CT), but this would have to be decided on a case by case basis. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0. They clearly are not, as of the 1.2 draft. Among other things, the section 2 grants are expanded, to include database right or any related right. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
Maybe we should work on that bit then. Not give the individual an opt-out right, but instead force OSMF to publish. Something like: As a condition of this agreement, OSMF agrees not only to license the database under the licenses given, but also to make the database publicly available or so. Yes, that would certainly be an improvement over the current wording. Agreed, it would be a much needed improvement. Moreover, why not force OSMF to publish under CC-BY-SA? Then you don't even have to delete the work of the people who don't agree to the CT. People keep drawing an analogy between the OSM move and the Wikipedia one, and that's what Wikipedia did. They dual licensed Wikipedia under *both* the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA. But let me change my thought experiment to something less absurd: Let us assume the OSMF have a vote to change the license of OpenStreetMap to Public Domain some time in the future. Let us also assume that the community is highly devided on this issue, with 25% of the active contributors in support, 20% in opposition, and 55% not caring either way. The license change is then not approved under the CT. Let us assume that the PD-supporters are greatly annoyed by the fact the a minority of 20% can prevent what they consider to be a vital step for the future of OpenStreetMap. The OSMF therefore releases a new version of the CT replacing the 2/3 majority with a simple majority. Everyone who does not agree to the new CT is prevented from further contributions. After 6 months, none of the PD-opponents are active contributors any more, so their contributions can easily be relicensed by a 2/3 majority decision. Of course, such a series of events would be hightly damaging to the community. But if the current CT are forced on PD-opponents in a similar vein, then the harm to the community will be done even sooner. Bye, Olaf ___ 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] Database and its contents
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law (copyright, database right, patent right, ...). What is not restricted by the law is permitted. Depends how the license is written. If it's written as a unilateral conditional waiver (GPL, CC-BY-SA, Artistic License 1.0), then indeed it can only give permissions. However, if it's written as a bilateral contract (ODBL), then it might give permissions *and* impose restrictions. In the latter case, it's also very difficult to enforce. See Jacobsen v. Katzer for an explanation of these principles, which, while not directly applicable outside the jurisdiction of that particular court of appeals, gives a very sound explanation of the legal principles which should extend far outside its particular jurisdiction. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Rob Myers r...@... writes: What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we regard points, ways, uploads or any other unit as the content of the database. The content of the database is any pieces of data smaller than the entire database. Anything - so a planet dump of Germany is the 'content'? Or if that is too much, what about a smaller extract the size of your neighbourhood? Has this point been addressed? The way I see it, there are only two possible interpretations of the DbCL license grant. 1) That it affects all the contents, in whatever size the extract may be, and the only thing that is *not* covered by the DbCL is the selection of the contents, the metadata (e.g. table column names), and the indexes. 2) That it affects only tiny extracts of data which are already public domain anyway. Is it okay to use the data to create a CC-BY-SA map of Germany? Is it okay to use that very same data to create, and release under CC-BY-SA, an XML (or PBF) description of that very same map? What about an SVG map? One key provision of the DbCL seems to be this. The DbCL does not cover any Database Rights, Database copyright, or contract over the Contents as part of the Database. As I'm in a jurisdiction without Database Rights, and don't plan to accept the ODbL contract, I'm mainly concerned with what the part about Database copyright means. Maybe it covers the selection of the contents, except to the extent that the selection is obvious (all roads, all water features, all points of interest). Maybe it covers the metadata and indexes, except that this is already covered by the GPL license on the Rails Port. So most importantly for me is the question as to whether or not it covers the copyright, if any, on the ways themselves. If it does, if the copyright, if any, on the ways themselves, is public domain, then I don't see how there are any restrictions at all for people in a non-database-rights jurisdiction who refuse to accept the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Picture yourself next to 100 people who have come after you, who have taken what you have given to the project and who have built on it, improved it, made it their project. Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is mine, and if those 100 people in 10 years make any step that I don't like then I will withdraw my work from under them? I don't know about any step that I don't like. But if the project in 10 years, with 100 times as many people, attempts to use your work in a way which you feel would be actively harmful, it's not only right to withdraw your work, it would be wrong not to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would sincerely ask anyone who feels the desire to pull the rug from under the project's feet in 10 years time if the project doesn't do what one likes: please recosider, and if you still cannot trust the project enough that you can let go of your contribution, then leave. I agree. But I'd like to add: Don't just leave. Leave and support a fork. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: How can we have the hubris to say we know what's best for OSM in 10 years? Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that. On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anthony, you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike to which I replied: On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote: If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set of people that can change at any time. Make simple rules and I will be happy. How can we have the hubris to say we know what's best for OSM in 10 years? Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that. On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future. The above statement was about creating fixed licenses without any loopholes - Mike said we should do it, I replied it was a bad idea. This was not about opting out of future changes. It's a bad idea to create fixed licenses without any loopholes? Unlikely, maybe, but then, that's why there's or any later version. The contributor terms go far beyond the ability to merely fix loopholes, as can be seen by the very switch from CC-BY-SA to ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't covered by BY-SA. Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote: The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY. Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but the ODbL does not *say* you can do so. It contains, in combination with the DbCL, the permissions required to do so. And I never said it didn't. That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is indisputable, was questioned. Search the ODbL for the string CC-BY. You won't find it. Search the ODbL for the string proprietary licence. You won't find it. Correct. So if what you are saying is correct the ODbL doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either. I have no idea where you're getting that from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one. If, however, you intend to protect our data by putting it under a share-alike data, then any additional license you add weakens that protection. Your suggestion would effectively kill the relatively strong share-alike element of ODbL that requires people to share the database *behind* a produced work, rather than just the work itself. So why are you, as a PD advocate, in favor of the ODbL? That aspect of ODbL is particularly nasty, if in fact it is enforcible. Whether or not it is, once you throw the DbCL into the mix, I don't know. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3). Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'. That's not exactly the argument. You can reverse-engineer the produced map tiles. But one interpretation of the ODbL (which I find to be persuasive) is that any significant extract of data which you obtained from such reverse-engineering would be ODbL, to the extent that a) it's copyrightable; b) it's protected by database rights; or c) you agreed to the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Rob Myers r...@... writes: It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not the copyright on it hasn't magically vanished. Right. But if the music publisher had given permission (perhaps by some tortuously worded licence document) to release those short clips under CC-BY then you would be within your rights to put them together into a longer work. Moreover, a better analogy is that you send *one* friend the entire Lady Gaga song, in a form (maybe a waveform video) which makes it difficult, but not impossible, to extract the underlying song. An even better analogy would be a library released under the LGPL. You are allowed to release the library only under the LGPL, but a binary which contains the library does not have to be under LGPL. The only free license which the LGPL is compatible with is the GPL, and it's only compatible with that because it's *explicitly* compatible with it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an entirely separate issue. Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's copyright without permission. So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work. since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules) Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable. If I write a score, and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still copyrighted by the original author. Clean room rules involve using only uncopyrightable factual data. There are arguments on both sides as to whether or not tracing a map constitutes copying only uncopyrightable facts (personally I lean strongly toward the side that says it does, but I wouldn't be willing to bet my business on that without receiving substantial legal advice). In any case, clean room rules don't apply to database rights. So if you live in a jurisdiction with database rights, you can pretty much throw away that argument. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say different things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project - rendering data into map tiles and distributing them. So ask on odc-discuss. And then explain it to us here. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: However, this part remains: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright... As Ben has pointed out, this section retains the assumption made previously: that you have the right to grant these rights. Along with other points that I have already pointed out, I'll note that the grant is with respect to Your Contents, not with respect to Other People's Contents. Yes, but if Your Contents are partly derived from Other People's Stuff, so that Other People hold some rights in them too... Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The Work is derived from Your Contents and Their Contents. Would a definition of Your Contents help clarify that? There are multiple copyrights on a derivative work. Each author's copyright extends only to his original material, and not to the material contributed by others. At any rate it's not crystal clear, and it needs to be. I agree that if it's not crystal clear to you, that this situation should be fixed. But it is crystal clear to me, so I'm not really sure how to fix it. I gave some suggested text earlier, but didn't receive any comment on whether or not that would be sufficient to clarify it. Maybe this is just a jurisdictional issue? I'm going to quote from the US Code, Title 17, Section 103. Someone please let me know if this principle is not accepted in other jurisdictions: 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's copyright without permission. Correct! So it matters whether the tiles are produced by OSMF itself or by a third party. Agreed. So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work. ...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, although OSMF itself has the power to do so because of the special rights granted by the contributor terms. Well, depends on what you mean by that. MapQuest certainly can (physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the bottom of the screen saying this map tile is released under CC-BY-SA. And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing so. Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing so. Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing (etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA. On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA, if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL. since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules) Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable. If I write a score, and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still copyrighted by the original author. Absolutely! I am not disputing that at all. I am saying that if you write a score, and then *with your permission and authorization* somebody distributes a recording of it under CC-BY or other permissive licence, then a person receiving it can exercise the rights granted by the licence to turn it back into the original score. You are merging two separate events into one when you talk about distributing a recording under CC-BY, distributing a recording, and licensing the recording under CC-BY. The ODbL explicitly allows the former. But it is actually silent about the latter. (It says that you can't sublicense the score under CC-BY, but it says nothing about whether or not you can license the recording under CC-BY.) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents' would effectively be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other People's Contents'. Correct. Of course, even if you're not breaching a contract by intentionally bulk-uploading data which is incompatible with the current license, that doesn't mean you can't be blocked and/or have your edits reverted for doing so. That seems like the better place to address the issue anyway. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: No, the data contributed to OSM must be licensed to OSMF under the contributor terms: You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence The rider in section three restricts what OSMF can do with the contents but it doesn't give any contributor the right to agree to the above clause unless they have full ownership of that content. Quite. There's probably a missing to the extent that you are able or similar before the You hereby grant, or some similar dependant wording. It is only a draft so far, my understanding is that its clearly intended that (i) to the extent that the contributor has copyright etc in the contributed data, they license OSMF to use it and (ii) to the extent that they don't, they are asked (but not required to warrant) that the contributor makes sure it is compatible with the current licence. If that's the intention it is entirely sensible, but quite different to what I and others had understood! The terms should say what they mean, and unambiguously enough that there can be no dispute. The terms should say what they mean, and unambiguously. There's always going to be room for misinterpretation and therefore dispute. It seems to me to go without saying that when you grant someone a license you are only granting them a license on your own work, not anyone else's. But obviously this should be reviewed by a copyright lawyer to ensure that's the case (and to fix it so it is the case, if not). So if the contributor terms are meant to say 'you make a best effort to ensure your contribution can be distributed under our current licences, even though it need not be compatible with future licences we may choose, and we will take the trouble to remove it if so' then they should say that. I didn't see anyone say anything about best effort, though there is a clause in square brackets which clarifies this (and I'm not sure if it's meant to be in or out of the final version): If you contribute data which is the intellectual property of someone else, it should be compatible with our current licence terms. You do not need to guarantee that it is, but you risk having your contribution deleted (see below) if it is not. On the other hand if the intention is 'you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, so we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, and you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that' then this must be made doubly clear, with an extra redundant paragraph if needed. I don't see any reason to believe that's the case. The stated intention is you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, nothing about we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, and nothing about you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that. Why are you adding things that aren't there? On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: So I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the contributor terms? Is this an improvement? It is a tremendous improvement. What aspects could be further improved and how? Get rid of clause 3 and the references to it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 11/17/10 04:26, Anthony wrote: They left what process? The goal of the process was not to find a license like the ODbL. The goal of the process was to address the sui generis database right within the CC framework. This is not a contradiction. I never said it was a contradiction. The ODbL could well have been the way to address data in the CC framework. It could have been, if the ODbL were acceptable to CC. But it wasn't. And it wasn't the goal of the process. I'd avoid talking specifically of the sui generis database right because that was clearly not an issue in the beginning; the issue they tried to solve was that no one understood the legal aspects of data very clearly, no one could figure out an algorithm for when copyright applied and when it didn't, and everyone wanted a solution. The solution to that problem doesn't require changing the license at all, does it? I'm not a CC insider; I have my knowledge mainly from stuff that John Wilbanks has published. The above quote is from http://blogs.nature.com/wilbanks/2007/12/ which tells a story that starts in October 2006. Thanks. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/17/2010 04:25 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: A bigger problem, in my mind, would be facilitating a fracturing of the copyleft universe. ODbL Produced Works may be BY-SA. Possibly. But if so that BY-SA doesn't extend to the underlying data, so it's rather useless. Furthermore, you can't use pre-existing BY-SA data in your Produced Work, as that would violate the BY-SA clause that You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. The point of BY-SA is that you can do whatever you want with the work, so long as you attribute and the derivative is BY-SA. If you can't reverse engineer the work to extract out the underlying data, and use that underlying data under BY-SA, then the work can't meaningfully be said to be under BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone tracing from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it. If tracing (a map) is considered copying (and that's a question of law which is not exactly clear), then the question is not what in the ODbL stops you from tracing, the question is what in the ODbL allows you to trace. ODbL specifically and explicitly gives you the right to create a Produced Work with which you can do whatever you like. Let's assume, for these purposes, that the person doing the tracing is not the same as the person who created the Produced Work. Is that fair? What gives the person doing the tracing the right to trace? Is the Database copyrighted? By tracing, are they copying a copyrightable portion of the Database? By tracing, are they extracting a substantial portion of the Database? If so, what gives them permission to do that? The only restrictions are those specified in 4.3 as quoted above. The person creating the Produced Work is specifically prohibited from sublicensing the Database. So any license granted by the producer of the Produced Work is not a license on the underlying Database itself. If there were other restrictions you wouldn't be able to create a Produced Work that was publishable under PD, CC0, WTFPL, CC-BY-SA etc. You have permission to license the produced work, not the underlying database. See 4.8. Can you publish a Produced Work under CC-BY-SA? Personally, I don't think you meaningfully can. The only semi-reasonable argument I've heard that you can, came from an ODbL lawyer who basically said, yes, you can publish a Produced Work under CC-BY-SA, because CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to databases anyway. I think Ed Avis is right on that one, though. It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution requirement is more reasonable.) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I release all my OSM work as public domain anyway and believe that CC-BY-SA is a deeply inequitable licence when applied to data. I really don't get this. What is inequitable about CC-BY-SA? The requirement to share-alike? I thought the problem with CC-BY-SA was supposed to be that it didn't protect enough. The reason I support ODbL is that it's a more equitable licence that fixes issues with CC-BY-SA and that the community can get behind. Can you be specific about that? What is more equitable about it? What issues does it fix? I'd personally rather have PD, but the community consensus is not there for that; and if the community wishes to have a share-alike licence, I'm not comfortable with recommending a leaky licence whose share-alike provisions can be trivially circumvented. What makes you believe that the ODbLs provisions cannot also be trvially circumvented? Just because of the contract law provisions? That's the most trivially circumvented part of the ODbL. You just don't agree to the contract. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:23 AM, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: It strikes me as two issues - changing to ODbL and, separately, the inclusion of a clause in the CTs allowing a future unspecified relicensing by the OSMF. The two aren't, necessarily, interlinked. And for some reason the part about the DbCL gets swept under the rug and ignored. The clause in the CTs which is now causing so much trouble is: You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees. And yet the DbCL, which isn't even mentioned, contains a clause which reads: The Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work. I haven't heard any fundamental objection to moving to ODbL ODbL does have a couple fundamental flaws compared to CC-BY-SA. It requires distribution of the underlying database when distributing a work produced from the database, and it allows proprietary maps to be produced from ODbL databases. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Anthony wrote: I really don't get this. We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you Why would you send an email to the list explaining that? By doing so aren't you engaging with me? On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: as a result of the ad hominem you resorted to last time round. What ad hominem? I don't think I engaged in an ad hominem last time around, but you show me where I did, then I'll apologize. I certainly have in the past pointed out your inconsistencies. That is, in fact, what I was doing just now. You say you want PD, then you criticize CC-BY-SA for being too PD-like, then you criticize it again for not forcing people to share. If I've questioned you as an individual, it's because I'm trying to understand your motives. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If Creative Commons had been more friendly towards the data licensing issue, a similar window could have been opened in a hypothetical CC-BY-SA 3.1 If Creative Commons wanted to support the export of sui generis database protection, there wouldn't have been a need for ODbL in the first place. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] license change map
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The discussion started with the license change map http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/, and someone said that the bits that are red on the license change map will be deleted. That person was asked to use would, not will. Not sure where you got your quote from, but this is how the exchange actually went: http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg34399.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Kevin Sharpe kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote: I posted these questions to the Forum and it was suggested that I try here; We wish to add to OSM data relating to electric vehicle charge point locations and capabilities. However, it is not clear to me whether a third party could extract and use the charge point data without restriction. In what jurisdiction? I doubt your data is copyrightable, in which case, barring some other legal restriction (database rights, trade secret, etc.), yes, anyone can extract and use your data without restriction, regardless of whether or not it's added to OSM. However, this is not legal advice. If you want advice you can rely on, contact a lawyer. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Kevin Sharpe kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote: In what jurisdiction? People will be adding data worldwide. Basically, I think you have three choices. 1) You consider your data to be valuable enough to hire a lawyer to try to figure out a way to keep people from using it without restriction. 2) You don't consider the data to be very valuable, and can release it under a license which allows others to use it without restriction (PDDL, CC0, DbCL, etc). 3) You can not bother with either, and not know whether or not your data can be used without restriction (in my IANAL opinion, in most jurisdictions, it probably can be). yes, anyone can extract and use your data without restriction, regardless of whether or not it's added to OSM. Is this true? If we encourage people to add data direct to OSM then is that data not covered by the OSM license? A license grants people permission to do something. If people don't need permission, then the license is irrelevant. What happens if someone extracts some other details from OSM when extracting the data we supplied? I'm not sure what the question is as to what happens. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Kevin Sharpe kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote: Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you trying to restrict it? We want the data to be available without restriction. Okay, I misunderstood you, and I'm going to have to pass on answering this one. Sorry for the confusion. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys, changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory relicensing question. Should we revert their changes back to Amenity? As another example, a user adds one POI, perhaps their business, to OSM and nothing else. They never respond. Do we remove the data? As another example, an editor makes many mass edits around the planet, arbitrarily changing keys/values to match their recent wiki postings, then answers no to relicensing. What do you suggest is the right answer for each of these situations? Eh, I'd say revert them, and then run a bot to make the changes yourself. Not so much because it's legally or morally required but just because it's easier than making special exceptions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If one million users each make a non-copyrightable contribution to OSM under CC-BY-SA then I can take those one million contributions and use them in any way I want because if they are not copyrightable then CC-BY-SA doesn't have any effect. However if I put those same one million contributions into a database protected by ODbL, then they are likely to form a substantial extract and thus they cannot be extracted outside of ODbL terms. How does one go about turning an ordinary database into a database protected by ODbL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
