Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
Hi, On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:02:27PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. Share Alike is the expression for fear of abuse. In my mind there cant be any abuse of OSM data. I want the OSM Data to be available everywhere and anyone. And it needs to be a no brainer which it isnt right now. For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a licensing issue. ANY restriction is a problem for adoption as one can see e.g. from the discussion about geocoding data. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:45:41PM -0400, Anthony wrote: So what's the problem? You don't want to grant OSMF the right to relicense. OSMF doesn't want your edits without the right to relicense them. Why do you want to force your edits, *which they don't want*, upon them? I have a problem with the OSMF saying it represents OSM. But at least it does not represent me nor have i seen a formal delegation of the OSMs future to the OSMF. So i see multiple problems with the whole relicensing process: - No legitimation of the OSMF e.g. vote by all contributers or delegation of powers to the OSMF by the contributers - No Contributers formal poll or majority to a) a license change b) license content So please dont state that the OSMF represents the contributers. It does not. And if we see the contributers beeing OSM so the OSMF neither represents OSM. So even if you disagree on parts you might accept that some of the contributers feel exspelled from OSM by the OSMF which some of us feel is a very nebulous foundation which is not really connected to our daily work but still requests all powers. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:06:48PM -0400, Anthony wrote: Could they do things another way? Sure, they could. But they've chosen not to. If you don't like it, don't contribute. I have contributed a lot for nearly 3 years and now i am blocked out so i am not contributing anymore and i ceased all my OSM work already. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:50:40AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: Olaf What you are suggesting would have amounted to allowing every single pre-CT mapper a veto on the license change process. With something around 300'000 pre-CT mappers, this is obviously not just not practical, it is simply absurd. Nobody likes losing data and mappers, but it is unavoidable in a process involving so many people with so divergent views on the subject at hand. Up to now the pre-CT mappers have not even asked if a license change should happen at all, and WHICH license be switched to. The OSMF has decided that it would be best to switch and the best would be ODBL. There has been no Mapper/Contributer participation up to now ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Hi, On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote: Florian Lohoff schrieb: More interestingly - Why on earth cant i contribute although i stated that all my contributions can be considered CC0/Public Domain? Why do i need to accept the CT, granting some spooky special rights to some folks i dont know and who definitly not act in my name. If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly OSM community can help your resolve the problem of not agreeing with yourself. ;-) Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT. In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did the work. So why should i grant special rights to the OSMF via the CT? A good point about the CC-BY-SA, CC0, PD, GPL or BSD is that everybody gets the same rights. Not so with the current relicensing. With stating that my contributions are PD/CC0 i grant everybody the same rights. The OSMF has stated that they going to delete my contributions as i refused to grant special rights to the OSMF. Does this only sound suspicious for me? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:58:03PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: The precise statement of that will be interesting. What if you personally accept the CTs but imported CC-BY-SA material in your old account ? IANAL but my guess is that you might decide on every individual contribution how to license them. The smallest aggregation factor with OSM is the login/username so as long as you accept the CT on one login and not accept on another the latter ones contributions may not be relicensed. More interestingly - Why on earth cant i contribute although i stated that all my contributions can be considered CC0/Public Domain? Why do i need to accept the CT, granting some spooky special rights to some folks i dont know and who definitly not act in my name. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of copyright is a no go for some. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is what we workers should control. No copyright was the true reason for Germanys rapid industrial expansion: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html A small quote: German authors during this period wrote ceaselessly. Around 14,000 new publications appeared in a single year in 1843. Measured against population numbers at the time, this reaches nearly today's level. And although novels were published as well, the majority of the works were academic papers. The situation in England was very different. For the period of the Enlightenment and bourgeois emancipation, we see deplorable progress in Great Britain, Höffner states. Equally Developed Industrial Nation Indeed, only 1,000 new works appeared annually in England at that time -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:54:04AM +0200, Lars Aronsson wrote: This is true, but it's also true that what OSM wants is to have something as similar as possible to GPL, but applied to maps. I dont - Am i OSM? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
