Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Hi, On 11/18/10 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (I believe that the reasonably calculated in 4.3 imposes a downstream requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you have not reasonably calculated that the attribution will be shown to any Person that views, accesses [etc.]... the Produced Work. At least one person disagrees with me here. :) ) And he's watching. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Martin, M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: But a map is (this might have to be looked at for the individual case) not only a work but can constitute a database at the same time. If you are able to reconstruct a database with substantial parts of the original database by re-engineering if from the map, you must admit that the database somehow still was in the map. Otherwise you could simply create a SVG-Map, publish it under PD, recompile the db from the svg and you would have circumvented the license. The first version of ODbL hat an explicit clause about reverse engineering, saying that if you reverse engineer a produced work the resulting DB will fall under ODbL. That has been scrapped because lawyers said that this was implicit - i.e. you *can* indeed have a produced work that is, say, PD, but if you use that to re-create the database from which it was made, that database is protected by database right once again and you need a license to use it. Otherwise, only the most obscure works (certainly not a printed map) could fall under the Produced Works rule. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Hi, On 11/17/10 10:46, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as the term means they would lose control over how their data is licensed. No, the data contributed to OSM can come under any terms as long as they are compatible with the *current* license; the onus is on OSM to remove it if a license change makes continued distribution impossible - quote from draft: (b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may [suspend access to or ] delete that data temporarily or permanently. To me, this is the exact opposite of losing control over how their data is licensed. Bye Frederik ___ 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
Kevin, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: The difference in my mind between the CTs and the ODbL is the provision that allows the license to be changed at a later date, potentially without further approval of the license. I don't believe this in ODbL. The CT allow the changeover to any other free and open license under the conditions that (clause 3) * the OSMF decides to do it * a 2/3 majority of active mappers are in favour. That's quite a lot of further approval I should think. ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases (including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section 4.4) * ODbL 1.0, * a later version of ODbL similar in spirit to ODbL 1.0, * a license compatible to ODbL 1.0. Now who exactly decides when to issue a later version of ODbL or what makes a license compatible isn't made explicit, but I think it is safe to say that an upgrade along that path would be possible with a lot less eyes watching than an upgrade under the upgrade per clause 3 of the CT! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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
Hi, Rob Myers wrote: As does OSM's existing CC-BY-SA 2.0 licence. I believe such an upgrade path was how Wikipedia changed from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, wasn't it? They got the makers of GFDL to release a newer version of GFDL that would provide an upgrade window. 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; alas they had their own plans (and saying to them You guys have more money than God, and I think you want to own this space, and I think you're trying to stop dissent from your Vision. when they popped up here to discuss probably didn't help). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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
Hi, Anthony 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. It was Creative Commons who started the process of looking for a license that led to ODbL. It's just that Creative Commons left that process along the way. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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
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. The ODbL could well have been the way to address data in the CC framework. 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. 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. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Existing data
John, you should really discuss license topics on legal-talk and not here. To give the briefest of responses: I don't see anything to prevent this from happening. Merging a future ODbL-licensed OSM with a (then) old CC-BY-SA licensed OSM dataset and publishing tiles made from that database would force you to release the whole database under ODbL which would violate the terms of CC-BY-SA. There are ways in which data could legally be combined but that's really going too much into detail for talk. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] license change map
Hi, it occurred to me that it might not be clear to everyone why I objected to NE2's comment on talk. 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. NE2 then replied: If we go by what the JOSM introduction page says (OpenStreetMap is changing its license), will is correct. This is of course wrong, because even if the license change is a given, will would only be correct if between now and then not a single person would agree to the CT/ODbL which is certainly not the case. Seeing that we were yet again descending into some kind of license change FUD on talk, I wrote Please stop this immediately. promting Florian Lohoff to say The above shows me there is no place for dissent in this project. which, again, is not the correct conclusion; it's just that the license change topic is quite serious and people discussing it should apply minimum intellectual prudence instead of throwing around soundbites that might upset others (a.k.a. FUD). There's a place for dissent, but there's not place for bullshit. The notion that everything currently painted red on that map is going to be deleted certainly deserves the latter label. I assume it was NE2's aim to question the JOSM startup notice which basically portrays the license change as a done deal, but so does the Wiki banner we're showing and personally I believe the only way to pull this through is indeed to make it very clear that we're committed to making the license change, rather than dithering around (a point on which, astonishingly, 80n seems to be on our side). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Use Case
Hi, Xavier Loiseau wrote: Do the pictures distributed through the web site have to be licensed under the CC-BY-SA license ? Later, will the pictures distributed through the web site have to be licensed under the ODbL license ? I think the answer is no in both cases. However, you might have to share the database that contains your picture IDs keyed against locations in the ODbL case since it could be argued that that database is derived from OSM and publicly used in your service. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Waiving attribution illegal in any country/-ies?
Niklas, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote: Previously I've been wanting a Public Domain(PD) map multilicensed under various PD licenses like CC0, WTFPL etc...but is this even possible? (waiving attribution requirement) The PD is not possible in your country is a canard that comes up every now and then. My suggestion is to ignore it as an irrelevant technicality. In many countries your right to be identified as the author of a work is inalienable (provided the work passes certain minimum requirements). This means that you cannot sell this right to someone completely (i.e. you cannot sell the fact that you are the author of the work). You can usually sell away most of the other rights that stem from copyright, i.e. you can sell an exclusive license to use your work to someone else, and from then on you can't even use your work yourself without asking them. But this is, in many countries, not possible with your right to attribution, i.e. the other person cannot buy from you your right to be named as the author. But that does not prevent you from granting others a perpetual non-retractable license to use your work without naming you as the author - which is something completely different! Thus, no problems with CC0, WTFPL etc. on that side. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes - certainly qualifies for never be considered for copyright because copyright needs humans to do something; I'm not sure about database right though. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Jukka, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? And even store masses of separate extracts into one database because that's what we would do ourselves? I'm not sure I quite understand. Our new license does have a provision that allows using non-substantial extracts without regard to the license. This can be viewed as similar to what I described above, although there is a big difference. 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. (On the other hand, it is well possible that there is an individual contribution which is copyrightable but still doesn't form a substantial extract.) ODbL's concept if you take a lot of insubstantial extracts and combine them then they again form a substantial extract does not apply to copyright of individual contributions made under CC-BY-SA - if you take lots of non-copyrighted bits submitted by various users and combine them then they don't suddenly become copyrighted - or maybe they do, but then it's your copyright and not that of the original contributors (think of tearing a magazine to shreds and then gluing together a nice picture from the coloured pieces of paper). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: You may also want to take into account the automatic database rights in some users' contributions (even if not copyrightable), which iirc are not disclaimed by CC-By-SA 2 unported. If we assume there to be such rights (and there might well be!), would this not mean that we'd have to remove their contribution from OSM immediately because the required permissions for re-use/distribution have not been granted? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] list of user IDs having accepted the contributor terms
Hi, Anthony wrote: If the contributor terms change, will there be two separate lists kept, or does the list get reset, or what? No, the will not be reset. If the terms should be changed, then we will have two groups of contributors, one having agreed to terms A and one having agreed to terms B. As long as any future action by OSMF is within the intersection of A and B - and this is what it would have to be -, it does not matter who signed which. All suggestions that I have heard of were about narrowing down the contributor terms, i.e. B would be a subset of A, so that the intersection of both would always be B. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and source = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
Hi, On 10/03/2010 04:31 AM, John Smith wrote: None of those examples applies since it was a question about copyright ownership. I don't see why we should treat a nation state's laws about copyright any different than a nation state's idiosyncratic laws about maps or surveying. If you are in Serbia and violate their copyright you'll end up being questioned by the authorities just as if you caught making a map in China. Of course you're welcome to try out for yourself whether or not these examples apply. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Kevin, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: (b) that there is a very clear (and legally sound) description of the effect of the new licence when the time comes to vote so we can make an informed decision which way to vote based on the effect it will have. I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is already decided; further votes are not planned. All mappers will be asked to agree to the Contributor Terms, thereby effectively agreeing to the relicensing. At that point they have the option to not agree, in which case OSMF will stop distributing their data; but this is not a vote, just an individual opt-in. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Hi, Kevin Cordina wrote: What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. And vice versa. I want to import dataset and that's why we cannot use license is tail-wagging-dog as well. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp;amp; the new license
Ed, Ed Avis wrote: And vice versa. I want to import dataset and that's why we cannot use license is tail-wagging-dog as well. Are you saying that any argument based on data imports is irrelevant to the choice of licence? What, then, would be an admissible reason for not using licence, in your view? In my opinion, the license must be chosen according to what's best for the project in the long term; short term considerations should not apply. Admissible reasons for not using license would be, for example, that license doesn't work, isn't enforcable, leaves too much doubt, runs the risk of sidelining OSM in the long run, or such. We already have some data that is not compatible with license is not one of them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Hi, Dave F. wrote: As I asked you before, will I be able to use this data under the proposed new regulations? Why, of course! You will be able to use OS OpenData under the rules they come under. This is completely independent of OSM. Even if OSM's and OS's licenses were totally incompatible that would not reduce the usefulness of one or the other. If you mean use this (OS) data to create new objects in OSM, please don't! I utterly, totally, fail to understand why one would want to copy OS data into OSM. If you think that OS data is good for you, just draw your map from OS data. If you would like OS data for your base map but cycleways from OSM - go ahead, it's a simple matter of rendering rules. There is a near infinite amount of free geodata on this planet, believe it or not; there is no way that OSM will ever be able to import all of this - and why should we? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Hi, Dave F. wrote: When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth your time No I have not you know that. Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been unable to answer. The post which I replied to did not contain a single question, Your general question was whether OS data is interoperable with OdbL+CT (you asked whether somebody could confirm or deny that); in further posts you made it clear that you would find it sad and hard to conceive if it were not so. I cannot confirm or deny your original question; but I wanted to say that it is in no way sad or hard to conceive if the license that OSM chooses is not compatible with a handful of government data licenses around the world. We are certainly not going to let the OS dictate the license we choose for our data. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Does importing data give you a copyright?
80n, 80n wrote: Dave Hanson relicensed the TIGER data under CC-BY-SA when he contributed it to OSM. If you received it from him you have to comply with his license terms. Just to be clear again, we're only using Dave as an example here; the real Dave Hansen has already agreed to the contributor terms so we're not worrying about him. Generally, CC-BY-SA is a license based on copyright. I can only license something CC-BY-SA if I have a copyright in the first place. Since I do not automatically have a copyright on everything I touch, I'm afraid things are not as easy as you make it sound. If I cut and paste a page of a Shakespeare play and put it on my web page, and write CC-BY-SA 2.0 below it, that's null and void. Copying a page of text doesn't give me a copyright on it, and where I don't have a copyright I cannot license it CC-BY-SA. (I can perhaps say it but it isn't legally binding.) If I download a TIGER file from the US government and mirror it on my web site, I cannot claim copyright or relicense it. Anyone who receives that data through me can do whatever he pleases with it, just as he can if he downloads the file from the government. The question is, how much do I have to do with that file before I can legally (or, if someone fancies going into that, morally) claim a copyright. What if I convert line endings or use an automated process to convert from one character set to another - does that give rise to copyright? Or is it too trivial an action? What if the action I do on the file is highly complex (such as converting from a shape file to OSM format or compiling from C source code to binary), but the action is done by a program where my only input is pressing a button and naming a file? Does copyright then lie with the author of the complex program, or is actually pushing the button on the software in this case non-trivial enough to warrant copyright? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
Hi, 80n wrote: Ironically, for most people it is much easier to reverse engineer a .png than it would be to inport a dataset. It really depends on the situation. OSM has no concept of precision, so if I give you a list of 100 POIs on a 1024x2048 map of England, you simply wouldn't be able to place them in OSM because they would be hundreds of meters off. Firstly, the publisher can distribute it in any arbitrary format, removing IDs, modifying tags, etc. There is no incentive for the publisher to make it easy to use. It must still be the database from which he has produced his produced works. Granted, there is potential for obfuscation here, but if what it published is sufficiently interesting, the community is going to take note (oh look, this guy wants to make it hard for us to use the data... let's see what we can do). Thirdly, the publisher can simply refuse to agree to the contributor terms. Indeed; the publisher could even be completely oblivious of them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
Hi, Anthony wrote: Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database :). Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive. Produced Work and database are not. The ODbL itself does not draw a clear line between Covered Database and Produced Work. A common definition of the term database as given e.g. in the EU database directive would apply even to a PNG fie, whereas we clearly do not want a map tile to be considered a database. Then again a PNG that simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a database as far as we're concerned. This is something that we the project have to define, and the current suggestion of LWG is If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it. Being able to relicense is certainly good. And if that means less imports that's even better ;) Honestly, and maybe that debate should have been had in more detail long ago, I think that imports are generally bad with only a few limited exceptions, and my vision for the future OSM is not that we are some kind of collection point for other peoples' datasets. The past has shown that imports have a short-term wow effect and very little else to offer. Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 If we have the CT as they currently stand, we can *still* import datasets by granting an exception (i.e. import a dataset for ODbL distribution only with no license upgrade clause for that dataset). Should we ever change the license in the future, that data will be lost, but we *can* make such exceptions on a case-by-case basis. However, if we decide against the relicensing clause in the CT then we don't have the same option (ok let's relicense at the cost of losing that imported data). Imports are overrated and should be strictly limited (and controlled more than they are today). But imports under ODbL do not become *impossible* with the CTs as they are suggested - they just require OSMF approval. So the question is not put very well. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
Hi, Anthony wrote: Then again a PNG that simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a database as far as we're concerned. Why would it matter? I think it is meant as an added safeguard against reverse engineering. ODbL already says that if you extract the database from a Produced Work then what you get is an ODbL database, so even if someone encodes the full database into a PNG then releases that CC-BY, someone else who extracts the database doesn't gain anything (he doesn't suddently end up with a non-share-alike database). However it is even better if we have a theoretical means to stop people from distributing such special PNGs under CC-BY. If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline. LOL, I hope you go with that definition. Actually, I liked an earlier version better: If someone makes something from an ODbL dataset and declares it a Produced Work, then it is considered a Produced Work. - It is refreshingly simple and doesn't actually open any loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put the PostGIS dump on a CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used it would fall under the reverse engineering clause. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
Hi, in a recent discussion on the German OSM Intertubes, we discussed whether ODbL would give a map producer the freedom to license his work under a noncommercial license. My take was yes of course, because I always thought of a map as a produced work. (The background was that we have some staunch anti-commerce people who see ODbL as the devil's work because it will allow commercially licensed produced works, to which I usually reply yes but currently you have no way to prohibit commerical use of things you make from OSM, whereas in the ODbL future you will have that option.) However, some of these people create *Garmin Maps*, which are essentially a vector database and thus it seems that they would be a derived database rather than a produced work. This, however, would reduce their options (and of course at the same times those of the evil commercial users) - as a derived database, the Garmin map would have to be published under ODbL. Now given the recently quoted definition from the Wiki: If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map on the Garmin device. In doing so, the device does extract data from the file (but so does a PNG viewer). The GMAPSUPP.IMG file is not a container for transporting OSM data, but it is possible to use third-party software to extract the data from it. Three(ish) questions: 1. Do you think that a Garmin map is a derived database or a produced work? 2. Do you think that this is good, or would it be better if it were different? 3. How will we deal with such questions in the future? Is the OSMF board the ultimate arbiter? Can the definition be changed to be clearer? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Hi, Anthony wrote: C'mon, that's what weak copyleft means. Not viral for some types of derived works. If that is indeed the definition of weak copyleft - and I'd like you to cite a source on that - then we're changing from one sort of weak copyleft license to another sort of weak copyleft license. But (a) I don't think you have the definition right, and (b) I don't even know why we're debating which labels from software licensing are applicable to ODbL. You can call ODbL blue copyleft or mint copyleft if you want, it doesn't help the discussion. If you make a produced work based on a derived database under ODbL, you have to share the database but not the work. If you do the same under CC-BY-SA, you have to share the work but not the database. Which license is strong and which is weak? The differ in where exactly share-alike is applied, but they do not differ in strength. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be content with the license... Thank you both for being so concerned about my personal license preference. Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I think. - As for the contributor terms, some parts of them are necessary and some are not necessary but prudent, among them the much-discussed clause 3; only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or unreachable by then, well, tough luck. - The après moi le déluge stance if you will. In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is best for the project in 10 years? I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years. Neither do I. But in exchange for every puny node you add today you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future. I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project) would be stupid, to say the least. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
John, there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find something inappropriate. For example this: John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: The devil is in the details. CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print... is just unsuitable for a debate (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100% rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time. As for debate, your point has been made and understood: * Your No. 1 priority for OSM is to keep the data you and some of your fellow Australians have mapped and imported. * In your particular case, while most of that data is compatible, or could be made compatible, with ODbL, things are more difficult with potential future license changes (CT clause 3) Until here, you are probably not alone and your cause is understandable. While others in the same situation might take a more progressive stance and try to make things work, your conclusion has been: * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good enough in Australia). Even this is, while probably not the best option for the project overall, something you're not alone with. You've said it, your point has been made, no need to repeat it 20 times a week. But here things start to go wrong. You're screaming, you're kicking, you're accusing everyone of sinister motives, secret plans, evilness of all kind. You're crying foul, you're writing acid comments and getting personal on almost any mailing list you have access to. You're the no. 1 poster on legal-talk by a large margin, and your messages haven't had anything new in them for the last four weeks. For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing. My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it. So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be doing things wrong. I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition. You're trying to make a win or lose situation out of something that wasn't one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to win. This is a trait commonly found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful. In addition, but this has already been said by others, your behaviour in our online community is bullish and obnoxious, and if made aware of your mistakes you're just trying to make this into a new battle in which to stand ground before your friends rather than admitting it and making amends. JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your arrogance and general disruptive behaviour. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your endless scorn, I now have to read 80 m and Jane Smith as well, and I think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see some of it flung back. *Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates your claim of dirty tricks on the part of the people you don't agree with. I have no problem with debating the issues, Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it. Unike you, I have debated all aspects of re-licensing with various people for the last three years, and I'm willing to continue doing so, provided it occurs in a civilised manner - one of which, sadly, you do not seem to be capable. For you, this is not a debate but an ego contest. I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You, JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your audience. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, 80n wrote: An ODbL fork would not have same rights to the data as OSMF would have. It would be a somewhat asymmetrical fork. You cannot fork the substance of the contributor terms. True, but I believe this discussion was about whether you can fork the future ODbL OSM without having to ask OSMF, and the answer is yes. If the community chooses to exercise clause 3 of the contributor terms and change the license from ODbL to something else, that something else must be free and open. It is probably open to interpretation whether free and open implies freely forkable but I have yet to see a license that is free and open but does not allow forks, What you can *not* do is fork the project, let yourself and two friends be the community in the new fork and then decide to relicense to public domain (but two thirds of the community have agreed, we're only using clause 3 of the contributor terms!). I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Duane, I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. The license change is not my personal hobby so I'm surprised you should single me out in the way you do, even using my name in message subjects. I'm sorry if I should have hurt your feelings by pointing out that Nearmap-derived data is only a minuscle part of OSM as a whole; I think that it is important to refer to facts once in a while when emotions run high. Removing data that is incompatible with our license is something we do almost every day. People accidentally import batches of noncommercial data - sure it hurts to remove it but should we change our license to noncommercial just to keep it? People in Germany have traced tons of buildings from sources that were incompatible with out license, and we removed them. Sometimes those who did the work left the project as a consequence because they felt that we shouldn't take legal issues so seriously. I don't think that there is data in OSM that is so precious that we need to risk OSM's future just to be able to hold on to that data. Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a continuity fork so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Hi, Kevin Peat wrote: Well I think someone wanting a PD project would need to start from scratch anyway as it would be hard for them to demonstrate that any existing data wasn't encumbered with other licenses given the wide use of imports and tracing in lots of countries. I think so too, but I think this is a problem that we don't need to solve now. Should the project want to change their license in 10 years, then they will have to think about that then. It is quite possible that a data source which we have used for tracing and which makes certain demands at the moment, stops making these demands in the future (eg there might be a source that currently says CCBYSA or ODbL use only but in 5 years the company has another product which is twice as good, and thus decides to lift any license restrictions on the old, which would of course also lift the restriction on the data in OSM). There's no reason to limit the options of a future OSM by perpetuating some currently existing outside restrictions which may cease to exist at any time. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Hi, Simon Biber wrote: I and many others need a firm commitment to ensure contributions continue to be protected by attribution and share-alike in the future. -1 (I mean, you may need that but you shouldn't get it. As an aside I also want to point out that the use of continue to be protected in your sentence does not fit with current wisdom about CC-BY-SA and our data.) I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and above the necessary minimum just because a few of us think so. What exactly the necessary minimum is, is subject to discussion; I could imagine that the necessary minimum perhaps includes that we fix an attribution requirement, but a share-alike requirement would certainly be going too far. It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody who is in OSM in 10 years' time. Oops. That wasn't exactly calming the waters, was it. But it needs to be said. There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license into the CT. Imagine that we put the phrase a free and open license with attribution and share-alike into the CT. Imagine further that, at some point in the future, a change to ODbL 1.1 is debated, and that ODbL 1.1 only had minor changes over ODbL 1.0. Then someone comes along and says: Sorry guys, the CT say that the new license must be share-alike. But ODbL is not properly share-alike, see, it allows non-share-alike produced works, and it allows non-share-alike extracts if they are not substantial! Bummer. At that time, we'll have one hell of a discussion about what exactly qualifies as a share-alike license and whether ODbL 1.1 is covered by the CT. To avoid that, you would have to write into the CT exactly what you mean by share-alike. By doing so, the CT would become much longer and more complex, and drastically reduce the choice of license in the future even within the pool of share-alike licenses. Inevitably, we would write what we *today* think is right into the CT - but the whole point of allowing future OSM communities to choose their license is that they may adapt. Trying to force their hand - when their contributions will vastly outnumber ours, and they will be 10 or hundred times more than we are now, would be overbearing. I don't think it would be morally right. The amount of data we have collected and the amount of time we have invested will, in 10 years' time, be minuscle compared to what the project is then, and using that contribution to justify wanting to have a say in OSM for all time is just greedy. I am aware that this is a moral statement and that it will be required to do slightly less than what is morally right, for practical reasons. And that's ok; we're all pragmatic. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Future relicensing in the contributor terms and data imports
Hi, David Dean wrote: I'm a little worried about the impact of the Contributor Terms have on the ability of OpenStreetMap users to import data. The Contributor Terms don't explicitly mention importing at all, and seem to be focused on the user-as-mapper rather than the user-as-data-importer. Not only the Contributor Terms - the whole project is. Data importing should always be the exception and not the rule. I'm concerned that even if a user-as-data-importer agrees to the CTs under the assumption that it is compatible with, for example, CC-BY data, then that data could become a noose around OSM neck if we want to perform a future relicensing (such as Mike's recent example about relicensing to release 10+ year old data under CC0 - this wouldn't be possible if any of the old data is CC-BY). CC-BY compatibility is being worked on, see Mike Collinsons posting from yesterday. The reason why this is a problem is, alas, more the already existing imports and not the idea of keeping OSM as open as possible for future imports. Any significant future relicensing is going to find some data imports that, regardless of their importers agreement to the CTs, is not going to be compatible with the hypothetical future license. I don't think that this is how things are meant to be. The person having done the import is not expected to agree to the CT if his source is not compatible with the CT: 1) Don't allow any imports from data that aren't completely compatible with the CTs (which would most likely just be explicit licensing under the CTs and PD) That's the way forward, with the provision that CC-BY (and other wishy-washy attribution licensing like OS OpenData) compatibility is somehow ensured. 2) Allow imports under licenses compatible with the current database license (CC-BY-SA/ODbL at current) provided that the import changesets are tagged appropriately (including a license= tag) and waive the relicensing terms for the imports. This is something that, as far as I understand, might be considered for some exceptional cases where imports under, say, CC-BY-SA have already been done but as you correctly say, these can become a liability later. It will almost certainly (IANABM, IANALWGM) not be considered for future imports. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] New license for business: meh
Hi, I'm sort of sick of allegations that what I say and do in the community is somehow tainted by myself doing business in OSM. Here's a quote from talk a while ago: Chris Browet wrote: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me nervous and doubtful. I assure you it does not have to make you nervous. Just because someone earns money doesn't automatically make him an asshole with no morals. Basically, everyone who writes what you wrote above somehow seems to want to say: We must always consider that he might be lying to us because he wants to make more money. This makes me sad; I spend a lot of time with OSM stuff, and I could certainly be making a lot more money if I'd take a job in some IT consultancy. But I chose to work in OSM because that way I get to do what I like. Hear? WHAT I LIKE. I have found a way to earn a living from doing what I like, and helping to move the project forward while I'm doing that. Until now, I have had exactly one prospective client who, after I had explained the CC-BY-SA to him, want away with a no thank you, and I have had exactly one prospective client for whom the CC-BY-SA would have been fine but his project wouldn't work with the ODbL (forcing him to release a database he would not have wanted to release), so he went away too. So the ODbL isn't really better or worse for business - it depends, or at least that's my view. In a way, of course, I have a business interest in OSM growing and becoming better, but can you hold that against me? You could also say that I have a business interest in the license matter being resolved one way or the other becaus that saves me from having to explain *two* licenses to every prospective customer which is a bit painful sometimes. And as for me being a key player - I am writing a lot on the lists, I am mapping a bit, I have written some software, and I am on the data working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Anthony, Anthony wrote: I think that the people count more than the data they contribute. That's a good statement. I'm happy that you have finally come to understand what this project is about! I was beginning to think you might just be here for the fun of the argument, whatever argument it was. Actually, that's a quote. Oh. Never mind the above. Anyway, the number of people who have submitted nearmap changesets is 121, the total number of people who haved edited in Australia is 2752; so while NearMap-affected data may be up to 10% of Australia, NearMap-using users only make up 4.3% of those who edit in Australia. (NB: The 2752 is a quick count in the planet file and will also include the occasional world-wide bot etc.) World-wide, we have ~ 130k users who have contributed data, so in terms of users, around 2% of them have edited in Australia, and NearMap-using users make up 0.095% - which is not far away from the 0.125% of data I counted in my last post. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about? Let's put it this way: If 300 mappers are enough to put in a veto against the CT or the license change then we can stop right now, because I am pretty sure that *whatever* you do (even if you propose we stay with the current license, do you agree yes/no), you can manage to find 300 people opposed. Also, as I just wrote in another mail, in the case of NearMap the number seems to be more like 120. If ways can be found to accommodate everyone then those ways are certainly preferable, and I am (as Anthony has pointed out) on record for saying that the community is more important than the data. There are probably not many ways to better alienate someone than by saying sorry we have to remove your data. So if it can be avoided then it should be avoided. But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew* this would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to alienate many more people (or keep them away in the first place), so we are willing to pay a price for being able to proceed with the license change. And personally I don't think that losing 5% of mappers (I'm thinking: A mapping party with 19 people attending instead of 20) would be too high a price to pay, provided that they're evenly distributed. I wouldn't want to lose 5% of world-wide mappers and lose them all in Australia (leaving nothing), or lose 5% of world-wide mappers but only the most prolific 5%, etc. Hopefully people who will make the switch decision have a different opinion. Those who will make the switch decision so far have refrained from saying numbers, and that's a sensible decision I think. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, John Smith wrote: In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as the license change. I don't think that you can separate them. Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless they are a package deal? No, my statement above is not politically or rhetorically motivated. I believe, and have explained the message from which you are quoting, that it is not legally possible for individuals to contribute non-database data to a database without a contractual agreement - the CT in our case. If you are employed in a company that produces a database, then that is probably either written in either your employment contract or in the labour laws of your jurisdiction (that the employer gets to do with the data what they want, and thus can release the data as a database under a license of their choice). But mappers are not employed by OSMF, so we need some sort of contract that says I, the mapper, allow OSMF to make a database from my data and publish it. The reason is that ODbL is a license for databases, and what the individual contributor contributes is not (or at least: not usually!) a database. I know what they are, but they don't have to be joined at the hip... OSMF cannot publish any data as part of OSM without permission. The CT is about getting that permission or assuring that it has been given; so yes, I do believe that both are joined at the hip. (Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're getting at - *some* sort of CT that enables OSMF to publish the data as part of a database.) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, Francis Davey wrote: Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis database right of the European Union? Certainly the EU hasn't, the whole database right is written for a world where company X pays employees to gather data. I am wondering (as others have wondered) where the substantial investment is? Fair question. I'd say the substantial investment lies in operating the servers and generally rallying the community. I am certain that the number of man-days invested by OSMF in its entirety (i.e. all working groups, board, technical team etc.) is substantial compared even to the most prolific individual mapper. But then again these people would probably do what they do even if they were not the formal OSMF but just a bunch of hackers! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, John Smith wrote: (Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're Exactly... you are trying to sell us a particular happy meal that isn't making us happy... us being...? And I'm not trying to sell anything. If you agree that some for of CT is required, and you have a better idea, then why don't you try to sell it to us. My main problem is that we're having this discussion now, when the CT were finalised in December last year, and we started to have new users agree to the CT in spring this year. What new facts have arisen since then? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I don't want companies stealing OSM data that I contribute!
Hi, Emilie Laffray wrote: While I am not a legal expert, I will try to answer that one. Companies can already make money from OpenStreetMap: there are plenty of examples around (Skobbler, Cloudmade, Geofabrik, etc). There is nothing preventing a company from using the data. However, they are bound to make their data available. People often claim that I do not want somebody to make money from OSM and give nothing back. I would like to point out that there are a number of perfectly legal ways, today, of making money from OSM and giving nothing back. A very simple example would be a large organisation with many sales representatives, where the organisation issues OSM maps to the sales reps instead of buying from Garmin. That can easily give them five-digit yearly savings, and nothing is given back. They can also start building something on top of OSM, e.g. add their own POIs to the map, or hack the TomTom map file format to be able to generate TomTom maps from OSM - all without giving back. You can, today, legally, couple OSM data with software you sell (buy AutoNav 1.0 with free OSM data). Of course the data can be copied under CC-BY-SA but why would anybody copy it since anyone who has the software to read it also has the data. Then you offer a data update, but sadly (due to added features) that update only works with AutoNav 1.1 which you have to buy for 5$ extra. Of course the update is free but... And, of course, if you are in a country where CC-BY-SA doesn't work then you can just completely ignore CC-BY-SA and produce dreived works to your heart's content without giving anything to anybody. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I don't want companies stealing OSM data that I contribute!
(moving this thread to legal-talk) Valent: AFAIK with new Contributor Terms [1] all data entered into OSM can be taken by some company, closed and they could create a product made profit on it. Grant: No, they have to make the data available. The data is share-alike. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ Felix: Nope, they don't have to. Only if they use it as one database. If they use it to publish maps, or create a product that afterwards uses two databases seperately, they don't have to publish their own data under Odbl. Grant is right in saying that they have to make the *data* available - not the end product but any OSM-derived database they create in the process. For the data, this is a *stricter* requirement than CC-BY-SA has (which requires you to make the end product available and not the data). Also, Felix is right in claiming that if you manage to create a product by using two separate databases, one OSM and one not, you do not have to release the not-OSM database. This is the same as with CC-BY-SA, which does not require you to release *any* of the two databases. While CC-BY-SA forces you to release the final product, anything that can be done by using two databases separately is very likely to be doable using the multi-layer technique we use today when we take OSM maps and overlay proprietary data - even today that does not make the proprietary data CC-BY-SA. So I fail to see where exactly the sudden outcry comes from. This has some positive sides, i.e. you could use CCBYNC data inside a map (which is a product) whithout that data loosing its NC status, on the other hand basically anyone can do whatever he wants now with OSM data, whithout giving a penny back. For me this is unacceptable and I won't agree to the new license, and also tell other people to stay far away from odbl. Whoever makes a finished product from OSM data has the choice of license for that finished product. It could be CC-BY-SA (if you like that), or if you don't like commercial users you can license it CC-BY-SA-NC (a liberty that nobody who creates stuff from OSM has at the moment). Or it could be a commercial copyright license - which will only hold if your product really adds that much value, otherwise, since the raw OSM data is available openly, anyone else can come and make the same product at a lower price, or for free. For me Odbl means that the quest for free data has failed, if you push Odbl license, you push data that is incompatible to CCBYSA terms as we know them. ODbL clearly is a free and open license (whereas, for example, the CC-BY-SA-NC is clearly not). I don't know if your personal quest has failed but it cannot have been a quest for free data. You are mixing up the data (which will always remain free under ODbL, and even under stricter rules as before), and stuff produced from data (which in many cases will *not* be data!). OSM is a project about free geodata, and ODbL serves that purpose well - much better than CC-BY-SA. OSM never was a project about free creative works produced from geodata, and thus, CC-BY-SA was the wrong license from day one - it just took us 6 years to notice. That what we do now to fix this is incompatible to CC-BY-SA terms as we know them should not come as a surprise; after all, CC-BY-SA is about creative works and we are not. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
Hi, Kai Krueger wrote: That however does still leave the substantial portion of mappers who have ticked the I declare my edits to be PD option, which surely makes them no longer compatible with these sources. These mappers therefore then presumably can not use those sources without being in breach of contract or license. Dunno - according to your logic, a mapper who declares his edits PD would not be allowed to edit an object that a non-PD mapper has created (because what the PD mapper uploads would be based on a non-PD source). Personally, I view the I declare my edits PD button as reading I hereby declare that I will not pursue copyright on any copyrightable action I might make in OSM which does not mean that all third-party copyright in something I touch become automatically void. 388 users have declared their edits to be PD on the Wiki for a long time, and I don't think any of them have restricted their editing to PD sources exclusively. So it seems editors will need to keep track of background image licenses anyway and with what they are compatible in order to warn or prevent the user in an adequate way. No, I don't think so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, to give some perspective to the debate about whether or not existing NearMap-derived objects will have to be deleted, I have summed up the number of edits in all changesets that said anything about NearMap in any tag (comment, source, etc). I arrived at a sum of 1,057,549, slightly over 1 million. The total number of objects in Australia is 10,234,567. That means that roughly 10% of data in Australia might be affected by NearMap. At the same time, the total number of objects in OSM is roughly 800 million, so Australia makes up for only 1.25% of OSM data (NB: not to be confused with mailing list volume, of which Australia has something like 10%). Only 0.125% of OSM data worldwide is affected by NearMap. That obviously explains why NearMap is very important to the community in Australia. But for the project as a whole, one million objects is really not something we should make a big fuss about. For example, we had a time-limited loan of aerial imagery for a small region here in Germany last year (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Luftbilder_aus_Bayern), and the community traced ~ 2 million objects within 3 months *in addition* to normal mapping going on everywhere in Germany. After the Haiti earthquake, 1 million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks. My statistics are of course flawed - they do not capture objects individually tagged source=nearmap rather than on the changeset, and if an object has been modified more than once in a nearmap changeset, it has been counted twice. Also, I counted ALL objects for any changeset that said something with nearmap, so if someone put comment=tons of POIs from GPS plus one road from nearmap that counts them all. And probably lots of other errors. I'm posting this to legal-talk because even though this posting does not deal with anything legal, I have a hunch that follow-ups will. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Simple question about CT
Aleksandr, Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: I registered a separate account for the same email (using the scheme with me+someth...@gmail.com mailto:me%2bsometh...@gmail.com). Will my agreement with the new CT in new account work for my old account? To the API, that account does not have the same email but is completely separate. Any license decision you make on one account will not influence the other. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Simple question about CT
Hi, David Groom wrote: However from a legal point of view the CT terms say is is an agreement between you and OSMF. Interesting, and probably true. But since making the second account forces you to use a different email address, how will we ever know with certainty that you and you are the same person? - Sometimes I wonder. We're joyfully ignoring the world before us in the area of cartography, confessing to utter cluelessness in GIS affairs and still doing great. Nobody has ever recommended employing professional GIS consultants because, hey, we're just geeks an programmers and they are GIS experts. We're also self-taught in most other aspects of running OSM, blissfully ignoring the professional world. Isn't it sad that when it comes to legal, we've meanwhile almost reached the point where we send away 12-year-old mappers because they are not old enough to legally agree to the CT? (Why don't we, by the way?) (Oh no, sorry, delete that last question.) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Anthony, Anthony wrote: I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing those derivatives under CC-BY-SA. In December last year we had a guy also called Anthony on legal-talk who said: I live in the United States, where factual databases are public domain, and while I have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever, I do have a problem with agreeing to a contract limiting my rights to use the OSM database. If that was you back then: Why should you request OSMF to properly remove all of your work when at the same time you have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever? If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract. I'm currently working on a fork. Still, or again? As far as I remember you were working on a fork in 2009 as well. I think that's the most productive work I can do with OSM at the moment. Unfortunately I don't have the resources right now for a public fork, so unless/until someone with such resources (*) does step up, my work is going to be mostly private. Maybe you could re-use the server previously used for your complete Wikipedia fork, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#The_Mcfly_Network Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info) who are not a fork of OSM but acknowledge OSM as inspiration and are not planning to use ODbL as far as I can see. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Heiko, Heiko Jacobs wrote: If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract. Did I miss something? On https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_0cc77vdd9 I only read this three possibilities: [Agree button] [Agree button and I consider my consider my contributions Public Domain] [Decline button] For yours there has to be also [Decline button, but I consider my contributions Public Domain] for not removing his edits ... No, I'll simply take his data and upload it under an account which I sign up to ODbL. I'm against wholesale taking data and re-licensing it under the assumption that it is unprotected anyway. But if there is someone who, for whatever reason, cannot be bothered to fill out the form, but tells me that they consider their data PD, then I have no problem uploading a copy of their data. If it later turns out they lied, or were certifiably insane at the time they made the statement, I can always remove it again. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Data Definition at OSCON
Russ, On 08/08/2010 06:34 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: Here are the questions we arrived at (thanks to Skud aka Kirrily Robert for taking notes): Good observations. Might be worth to discuss with folks at odc-disc...@lists.okfn.org as well. I'll forward your post there for people to be aware of your list. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hi, On 08/08/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote: On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelsonnel...@crynwr.com wrote: copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the people who think a reciprocal license solves a problem. Pushing things in a PD direction will cause just as many problems, there is no way you can have a one size fits all and then try to shoe horn everyone into that box: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog I'm somewhat tired of people using existing imports as the reason for *anything* in OSM. Can we please just delete all data that has been imported? Imports are just data, and we should not base any decision we make on some idea of copyright that someone else might have. Imports are bad enough in the effect they have on the surveying community. If imports now, in addition, start to become a corset that limits our choices with regards to where the project should be going, then it is *high time* to get rid of them completely. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Liz, On 08/08/2010 10:21 AM, Liz wrote: You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian coastline. I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. Honestly, I will. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: Not arguing against people having a choice, but I do think that, whether or not the license change happens, people should be able to get all of the old data, including history, under the terms of the existing CC-by-sa license. It has been officially said by the LWG (and is documented in the implementation plan on the wiki) that immediately before changeover, a last cc-by-sa planet including full history will be made available. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Heiko, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data? Because. as I explained to you yesterday, CC-BY-SA does not allow redistribution of data under a different license; so once the data is distributed under ODbL, anything that is CC-BY-SA and not relicensed has to be removed. If we forgot the official reasons or if they had no worth to write them down then we should also simply forget to remove any data ... ;-) Next thing you request to see the board meeting minutes that give the reason why we're not allowed to copy from Google, and when it turns out that there has never been a decision by the board that says we will respect other people's copyright you say then we should not respect other people's copyright. That's absurd, and you're making a clown of yourself by repeating your question every two days. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hi, 80n wrote: Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet? I doubt it. How are way splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full history)? I think they can be auto-detected (i.e. where in one changeset, one way suddenly loses some nodes and another springs up that uses exactly those). Such auto-detection could be limited to areas where we have recorded contributions that are not being relicensed; in all other areas we would not have to bother. Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip through, then fix them in case of complaints. But I am not in the LWG and they might, unbeknownst to be, already have something that works. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hi, John Smith wrote: Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip through, then fix them in case of complaints. Which goes against the usual OSM policy of rejecting it if unsure, rather than accepting it. Yes and no. When it comes to using external sources etc., we always say when in doubt, don't. But when we have to remove someone's contributions because of a copyright violation, we usually do exactly what I have outlined above - make an honest attempt, but accept that a few fringe cases may remain which we'd then deal with if there is concrete complaint. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Liz, Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you consider it, of course you think it is quite short. 80n first mentioned this deadline on 14th July, i.e. at the time that was six weeks. It was unclear to me what exactly the deadline was about; he wrote if there isn't a clear majority by September 1st then I'd say the relicensing has failed but a majority of whom, in what question? Did anybody - you, 80n, anybody? - think that we'd somehow, in these six weeks, be able to email every contributor, and ask them to relicense their content, chase up those that don't answer, and consolidate the results? - Personally I didn't even think about that deadline becasue it seemed quite absurd. Plus, I don't know if we need any kind of deadline at all. We can simply decide to re-license, then ask everyone to agree, then disallow contributions from people who haven't agreed. All the time, the planet is still under CC-BY-SA. Then we evaluate the losses. Say we find that 20% of data has not been relicensed. Ok, we start working on replacing that data, using the work of people who are ok with ODbL. After a while, only 10% of old data is still there. We continue, with the planet still under CC-BY-SA. After another while, we have brought down the losses to 1%, or 0.1%, or whatever. At that time we throw out the rest and publish the planet under ODbL. Who cares if that time is one year in the future? If it helps to keep our losses to a minimum - why not. As you know we have many people who don't fear the license change, but they fear data loss incurred by people not agreeing. In theory, the LWG could even set an arbitrary limit (e.g. we promise not to re-license the planet until global data loss is less than x%). That should then bring all those people on board who fear data loss. Then we just carry on as I described above, slowly eliminating the old data by replacing it with re-surveyed new data until we achieve what we want. Just a thought. Not necessarily bright. Might have its problems, might also work. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Rob Myers schrieb: Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible with cc-3.0-by-sa would be a way to avoid all loss of data and problems with asking all members and all other problems? Then we should search a compatible way ... This would require the cooperation of Creative Commons. They would have to explicitly declare a database license as compatible with their 3.0 license. Since ODbL arose from an abandoned attempt by CC to find such a license, I think it is unlikely that they would do that. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
Hi, TimSC wrote: Richard and Frederik observed that a database right is probably owned by someone and that someone might be (partly) OSMF. By the way, the database right exists - in certain jurisdictions like the EU - even if it is not asserted. That means, OSMF is likely to hold database rights over the database even today. But CC-BY-SA says nothing about granting somebody use of the database. This means, and I'm not making this up, that some potential users have received legal advice against using OSM at this time because they percieve OSM to be protected by database law, and at the same time there's no license allowing you to use it under database law. Being allowed to use it from a copyright perspective, as done by CC-BY-SA, is not enough in the eyes of these lawyers. Some localized versions of the CC-BY-SA were amended to include database law but insecurity remains about if and how that applies to OSM. The problem has been addressed properly only in CC-BY-SA 3.0 (see http://wiki.creativecommons.org:8080/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf). They were relatively optimistic that OSMF is nice and would not assert their rights, if any. Matija Nalis pointed out this is no guide to their future behavior. In this context, it is perhaps important to note that courts are not computers, and legal code is not program code. Just because it could be logically constructed that you cannot get your own contribution back without agreement, doesn't mean a judge will sign that off. We should also get an official statement from OSMF that they will not assert their database rights on our contributions. Of course if OSMF were to say that they don't assert database right on any contribution made by PD people then that would be great. I am not sure if it is possible legally though, because the very nature of database right is to protect the whole database - once you deal with database right you don't deal with individual contributions or data items any more. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Heiko Jacobs wrote: A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data has traveled. For example, there's dual-licensed software where you can either use it under GPL or pay for a commercial license. You don't have to re-download the software when you switch from GPL to commercial - you just pay the price and get a piece of paper that says you can now use the software under another license. Often there won't even be a separate download link. It is perfectly sufficient if someone agrees to ODbL, we can then take his data from our existing database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
Tim, TimSC wrote: I don't get that impression when I read the wiki. It says it is only a statement and making this statement does not change what people can do with your data. Looking at the wiki, those lines were written by Frederik Ramm. I guess I'll ask him what he intended. I would very much *like* it if were possible extract from OSM that which has been contributed by people who declared their contribution to be PD, and then use that as PD. However, as Richard correctly pointed out, PD content wrapped in a ODbL database does not allow this kind of use. One of the very reasons ODbL was chosen is that (at least in some jurisdiction) copyright on facts is either very weak or non-existent, so ODbL has necessarily been built in a way to protect the database even if the content was without legal protection. Naturally this applies to PD content as well. I wrote the passage that you quoted because even if I might have liked things to be otherwise, we must not mislead people into thinking that just because they click that their content is PD, it can be extracted from OSM as such. Any measure of giving legal force to the PD statement, i.e. allowing users to extract a PD only subset of data, would have my full support. I didn't dare to campaign for it however for fear of alienating those who not only want their own contributions to be share-alike, but want everyone else's contributions to be share-alike as well. I have suggested to LWG, inter alia, that the Contributor Terms should be rewritten to admit the possibility that it may distribute PD contributions under a CC0 or PDDL-licensed database. I think this is a good idea, for clarity. I am disheartened by those calling for the contributer terms to explicitly rule out PD. I am too, I had thought that we had surmounted that impasse long ago, but now there are again voices for cementing SA forever. Mind you: If Richard's idea of effectively dual-licensing content could be implemented, *then* I would not care if the main OSM license was share-alike forever, because as a PD advocate I would still have the option to convince the main contributors to switch to PD.[*] It is only if that option is ruled out - and at the moment it *is* ruled out - that I would expect the upgrade path to not rule out PD. Bye Frederik [*] Some might say here: But you *always* have the option of talking someone into dual-licensing his stuff specially for you. However if that had to be done bypassing OSM in some way (because you cannot take a PD contributor's data directly from OSM), then that would be next to impossible. Most contributors would not even have their contribution to give it to me. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: 3) I can consider my edits public domain to my heart's content, but if they are based on other people's non-PD edits, then they aren't going to be fully PD. I think in the wake of the license change we will have to develop a number of very interesting metrics telling us which objects - or maybe even which properties of an object - we need to discard because somebody hasn't agreed to the new license. The same metrics could then obviously be used to filter out how much of a PD edit is really PD. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
Tim, TimSC wrote: Firstly, the pro-PD people could propose a strings attached deal to OSMF as a condition for relicensing their data. After relicensing, the pro-PD people have their leverage watered down by the contributor terms. Speaking as a pro-PD person, I think I am happy enough with what's on the table; I do not think I have to try to twist OSMF's (or the other contributors') arm(s). In fact, I think there are enough people proclaiming that unless OSMF does X I will not relicense. I'd rather not be seen joining that chorus now. I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question, and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the Pro-PD outcome will be large enough to make a statement which may influence what happens in the future. I wouldn't ask for more at this time. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
Hi, John Smith wrote: people deriving from say Yahoo, is that information allowed to become PD? Yes. Contrary to popular belief, Yahoo has never struck any special agreement with OSM. They have evaluated their own terms of service and concluded that tracing off their imagery is generally legal - not legal specifically for OSM and only if the license is X. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
Hi, here's an interesting one. Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). Now I would like to make a slippy map overlay where areas are coloured red or green or different shades in between according to how much data is missing from the current ODbL dataset compared to the old CC-BY-SA data set. The idea being, if an area is red, it may be worth going there and resurveying the area because edits have been lost. I wonder if this is possible at all. Behind the scenes, I would have to compare the old CC-BY-SA data with the new data set to find out what happened. My tiles would be a derived work from the CC-BY-SA data set and as such licensed CC-BY-SA, no problem there. However, I would in all likelihood be creating an interim database derived from the new ODbL data set and the old CC-BY-SA data set. ODbL would require that I release that database under ODbL. But CC-BY-SA requires that if I release the database it must be under CC-BY-SA exclusively. Thus I cannot release the database, thus I cannot publish the tiles. Right? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
John, John Smith wrote: You are correct, it's obvious that there is some people unhappy with the status quo. I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like living in a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute - you might like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the menu. The status quo is volatile, and is soon going to be a status quo ante - one way or another. It's got nothing to do with Google and it's not helpful to drag them into the discussion. It could have been any community that offers map editing similar to OSM, Google just happens to be the most obvious alternative. Google is not an obvious alternative. The only respect in which they are remotely similar to OSM is technology; they don't have the same kind of community and they don't produce the kind of output that OSM contributors want. Personally I don't see any alternative to OSM that comes close, even remotely. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Liz wrote: And the arrangement was that whether the licence change went ahead or not depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data Firstly, if anyone ever said how many people then that was a mistake, because the number of people is of little interest, it is the amount of their contributions that matters. Secondly, I think Richard Weait found good words for this at SOTM: Nobody in OSMF or the license working group wants to hurt OSM. They are all mappers, they all want the project to prosper. They will not take a decision that is bad for the project. It is ultimately the board of directors of OSMF who will have to decide whether the license change can go ahead and they will make this decision once the situation is clear. They haven't committed themselves to benchmarks but I believe Ulf said at SOTM that it would need to be significantly more than 90% of data relicensed otherwise the change cannot go through. (Unsure whether that was a personal opinion, a LWG statement, or an OSMF statement.) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: Sure, any Derivative Database that is made available to a 3rd party falls under the share-alike. No doubt about that. This handled in section 4.4. The exceptions are handled in the following section 4.5. In case of your Produced Work, you make the Produced Work available to a 3rd party and not the Derived Database on which the Produced Work is based. This constitutes a public use of the derived database and triggers share-alike for the derived database. There is no exception. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: a derivative database that is only used to create a Produced Work is excluded from the share-alike: 4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 (Share-alike, remark Oliver) do not apply in the following: a. [..] b. Using this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database for purposes of Section 4.4; and No, I believe you misread that (but would appreciate a third set of eyeballs on this). The sentence you quoted means: The act of using a derivative database (or this database, or this database as part of a collective database) for the creation of a produced work does not in itself create a derivative database. I.e. simply using some database to create a produced work does not somehow magically create a derivative database which you would have to share. For example if you use the planet file to create a produced work, you are not automatically creating a derivative database. However if you explicitly make a derivative database for the purpose of creating a produced work - and this is what would happen in my scenario - the full force of 4.4c, A Derivative Database is Publicly Used and so must comply with Section 4.4. if a Produced Work created from the Derivative Database is Publicly Used. and then 4.4a, Any Derivative Database that You Publicly Use must be only under the terms of: i. This License; ii. A later version of this License similar in spirit to this License; or iii. A compatible license. There is no doubt in my mind that the derived database on which the routing is based *must* be shared. Your interpretation of 4.5b would effectively render 4.4c completely useless. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] having anonymous internet users editing the map
Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: lulu-...@gmx.de wrote: As the topic of the map is discussed controversely, vandalism is likely to happen, I am afraid. If the user attempts to use OSM as a vehicle to further his own side in whatever controversy you are alluding to, risking to bring lots of vandals upon OSM, then that might be a reason to ask him to stop it. I have talked to the people in question. It is about a map for Bavaria showing in which bars/restaurants you are allowed to smoke. They are about to have a referendum about that and they have some tensions in the population. The map will be biased towards non-smoking (displaying something like a red traffic light for those where smoking is allowed etc.), and they will have an editor that allows anyone to edit the value of the smoking tag. These edits will not be live edits but instead be queued to be later uploaded by one of the map team members, going through the usual JOSM conflict resolution where necessary. This is sub-optimal (preferably everyone should create an account and make live edits through OAuth) but then again, as long as the change is limited to the value of the smoking tag - no creation of new nodes, no deletion of nodes, no modifications to other tags - and since they themselves are the only serious user of that tag, any sort of vandalism will hurt themselves mainly so I think this is a non-issue. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk mailing list archive is broken
Hi, for some reason, the mailing list archive has been renumbered. When I search for something in Google now, I will find a mailing list post, wen when I click on the link, I see something else. Go back, click on cached, and see the real thing. See e.g. this article from 2007 in which another article is referenced: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000179.html however if you click on the link you are led to a completely different article than the one the link was pointing to originally! Can it be fixed? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Hi, Alexrk wrote: Hmm, if I buy OSM-related consulting services at Geofabrik and don't pay for it - you don't wanna sue me? *zwinker* I'd probably just sell the debt to a collection agency ;-) Geofabrik sells a lot of custom data extracts where the customer gets exactly what they want, and thus while CC-BY-SA allows them to pass it on, someone else is likely to prefer getting their own custom extract rather than using something made for a different purpose. The old model, in my eyes, is: I have something which anybody *could* copy without any damage to me; however I use copyright to threaten people not to do what they could easily do. It is widely used in the media industry. It is attractive because at least in theory it scales indefinitely - someone using this model can always dream of his photo being used for the iPad desktop or something. You are right in questioning the terms old and new because obviously my old model only came into being through the advent of digital technology. I much prefer something I'd call a craftsman model - I do some work for you, and you pay me for it. This obviously doesn't scale quantitatively - I can try to do work that is worth more thus raising my income, but I cannot work 48 hours in a day. There might be simple and more complex models. If a simple model works as well, so why not. The simpler, the better. I just don't like those models that threaten users. If I buy a kitchen mixer I can do with it whatever I please - I can take it apart, use the motor to drive a fan, and later re-assemble or sell it. Anything that is physically possible is also allowed. I'd like it to be like that with digital goods as well. Actually it was just a fixed idea that came to my mind and I wondered how this would comply with share-alike - without making it too complicated. Just for fun, you know. I didn't intended to start a sophisticated, value added, ad-financed business model. As I said, you're preaching to the choir; actually I have always used an example very similar to what you write in the share-alike discussion: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000169.html This might go to the wrong address again, Frederik, but sometimes I receive an impression, that some OSM folks distinguish users between leechers and contributers and we and they. Which I think is not appropriate. I believe, everybody who gets involved in doing something with OSM is a gain for OSM, even if one doesn't contribute data directly. Personally I tend to differentiate between the legal and the moral situation. Legally I'd like it all to be PD. Morally. however, if someone comes along and uses OSM data and behaves as if it was all his, I tend to be critical of that attitude. Just like in science really, where as a scientist you generally have access to anything done by others and you are not even legally required to provide attribution, but if you don't the community will oust you. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alex, Alexrk wrote: Am I right that such a tourist map could only be published under a CC-like license again? In other words, if I do so and sell just one copy of that map, any Big Publishing Co could duplicate and sell the same on its own for ..hmm.. half the price? Correct. So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would be able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a ROI on that work? Our standard reply is that you cannot expect to apply old-world business models to our new world order. There is a lot of room for really creative things; taking our map and printing an A-Z is not exactly a prime example of creativity. The suggested ODbL license changes situation by allowing you to make a produced work and license that under a non-share-alike license as long as the produced work is not a database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alex, Alexrk wrote: You might like AZ (or Falk or whatever) or not - but please don't underestimate the creative work of cartographers. Making a good readable, fine-looking paper map is far more than installing Mapnik, choosing some color styles and pressing the render-button. I know. Why making to much assumptions or restriction regarding the kind of business models evolving behind OSM? I think it's not a good attitude to say, we don't like or respect this or that usage of OSM because it's too old school, it's not Web 2.0 or ..geez.. someone claims his own license for his IP (damn capitalist ;-)). I am also of the opinion that it is desirable to give people as much freedom in working with our data as possible, so you are preaching to the choir here. But not everyone in our project will agree that the concept of IP is a good thing. You seem to be relatively sure about the idea that anything you add on top of OSM data is yours and yours alone - but if you take your finished A-Z product, and remove from it the data taken from OSM, and remove from it the tricks you have learned from the old masters when you studied cartography (surely that's their IP, no?), and remove from it the nicely matching colour palettes that you have downloaded from a web site, and remove from it the font which has taken someone a full year to design, and remove from it the work of Mercator and those who came before him... is your own contribution in all of this really so large that it warrants that you should get 100% of the credit and revenue? I think that IP is grossly overestimated and overused in our society. Recently I used the tube in London and saw that even there some group of lawyers had an ad campaign aimed at people who think they are up to something and need that protected. I have had to sign countless NDAs in my life only for people to divulge stuff that any thinking person could come up with. Incidentally that it also the reason why I am against share-alike licenses - because they are rooted in IP, in the idea that our work of recording stuff around us somehow entitles us to dictate our terms and conditions to others. Just like you think that it is of course all yours if you design a good map from OSM data, OSMers assert that it is all theirs. I find both positions morally questionable. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alex, Alexrk wrote: Lets assume someone works two weeks - hunch darkly night after night over Adobe Illustrator, coming up with a handmade city map of Hamburg. OK voila nice, now lets try to sell it in a small edition of printed copies (BoD or whatsoever). But why should one invest two weeks of work + advance payments for the printing costs, if another big publishing house can take that map and sell it for half the price, just because that company didn't had your sunk costs (and possess much cheaper publishing abilities). One idea would be to make a deal with them and have them commission you to make that map. If they make a good wholesome product of it, and they don't sell at too much of a markup, would people rather buy their original product or the chinese facsimile for half the price? Another idea would be combining the OSM map with other, original content which makes the product something nice and special; that other stuff, if it is not derived from OSM, would not be CC-BY-SA, so while anyone can copy the map, they cannot copy the other stuff, and thus can never reproduce the whole that you have created. There are lots of business models that work with share-alike data; it is just that the old business models which are exclusively based on pay me or I sue you don't work. Sounds not so promissing. From that point of view, share-alike would even benefit monopolies - as typically any other sunk cost-intensive production does. I don't follow your argument here. A Monopoly means there is only one provider of maps who can dictate the price. Whereas with share-alike, as soon as the would-be monopolist makes big profits, others will come and copy his map. Where's the monopoly there? I think, I begin to understand, that CC is really not the right license for OSM. CC is not the right license for OSM, but not for any of the reasons you have mentioned. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: In addition we should put a sentence that they can make donation to OpenStreetMap and the community forgets about the mistake. Otherwise the OSMF might take further legal actions. You mean as in Dear Mr President, I've got this photo showing you in bed with another man, here's my bank account where you can make a donation, in which case I will forget about it... ... unless I need more money later in which case I might again remember? Honestly, what you're suggesting smacks of blackmail. I do not doubt for a second that it will work in some cases but I consider it morally inacceptable, *especially* because every single contributor is entitled to take legal action, so even if the accused paid up nobody in the world can guarantee that he would not get sued, or get bad press. (I'm not sure in how far this might change with the proposed license change; if the license change puts OSMF in the sole position of being able to sue then yes, OSMF could say they won't sue in exchange for payment but I would still consider this questionable, not least because it would mean that if they decline to pay we'd have to sue which I'd like to avoid.) In cases where a company gains a financial advantage from a breach of license I think legal actions would be appropriate and should definitely be taken. I think this is important as many companies are already watching what happens in case of a severe violation to OSM data. If nothing happens many companies might take advantage... I am very skeptical of legal action. If someone really takes the piss then yes, perhaps, but it must never come to OSMF being a fundraising machine for lawyers. Legal action can very quickly cost more than everything else we do, and I would hate to be in a project whose main activity, according to the balance books, is paying lawyers to sue people. Legal action must be the exception, not the norm, and reserved for really big cases. There is so much murky and questionable legal action going on around copyright and maps, and it must never come to people being fearful of using OSM because they fear the legal consequences of misstepping. Also, if we start threatening to sue people then we also need to set up proper advice for users (if you follow these rules then we won't sue you), and be prepared to answer questions (I want to do X. Is that allowed?) with something other than Dunno, ask a lawyer, and we might still sue you later. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: I just want to create a situation where people are aware that abusing OSM data leads to consequences so that is becomes a trade-off like not buying a ticket for train. If too many people use the train without paying then the operator will go bust. If too many people use OSM without attribution then...? Don't get me wrong, as long as we have this license we should insist on people following it, if only to respect our work. But by making comparisons like the above you're already playing what I like to call the music industry game, which is neatly illustrated here: http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/piratebay_header.jpg Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Phil, Phil Monger wrote: It's a new cycle book for London, with routes, etc. Pretty standard fare. The problem? All the maps inside are blatant OSM copies (Mapnik, I assume) with route overlays posted. Now this wouldn't be a problem, obviously, except they are way WAY outside of CC-BY-SA. A general rule of thumb is, try not to get over-excited about these things. In most cases they really happen out of negligence. None of the maps have *any* accreditation back to OSM on them. The only place OSM is mentioned it on the very last page, very last line, where it says All other maps by Steve Dew using base maps by OpenStreetMap ... which is already better than other uses we've seen. I think the already-quoted approach by TomH http://compton.nu/2010/05/how-not-to-credit-openstreetmap/ was very sensible, and calm, and worked well. In the long run we might even have a fleshed-out data working group (i.e. more than the odd bunch of already-overworked people we currently are) to take on such cases, like Steve suggested in his latest comment. Interestingly, if you read the comment section of Tom's post, there's a comment by one John Gilmore who is of the opinion that a book using some CC-BY-SA maps must be completely CC-BY-SA, an idea which I do not share - I think the book is a collected work where only the maps have to be shared. The OSM book that I have written has a lot of maps as well, and they are not always individually credited; but somewhere in the first few pages where it says that all this is copyrighted and you'll get shot if you disobey, I added an extra passage saying This does not apply to the maps in this book which are from OpenStreetMap and licensed CC-BY-SA. Ironically, it doesn't list OSM or OCM as useful resources for cyclists ... I wonder why? This is really strange. I mean if OSM was useful enough to create the maps from... I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can we go from here? The only people who could clear something in that way, at least for now, is the community of all individuals who have contributed to these maps. I have an urge to go start flogging scanned copies and claim .. but surely as a derivative work this is also a work released under CC-BY-SA? if that's what it takes to stop corporations like New Holland from pilfering work like this. As I said, I would be quite cross if someone were to distribute scanned copies of my book because I don't believe that depicting OSM maps in it makes the whole thing derived. But it is an interesting question - if someone violates CC-BY-SA by taking OSM data and releasing it under his copyright, and you then violate his license by simply taking the stuff and distributing it CC-BY-SA, can he sue you? Can you be jailed for stealing from a thief? Probably depends on jurisdiction. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Hi, Phil Monger wrote: This is entirely derivative. The maps and route descriptions operate together as *one piece of work* - indeed descriptions of the ways, place names, distances, directions (ect) used in *the text* are taken from *the mapping*. The text couldn't / wouldn't be there without the mapping, leaving the entire thing as one piece of work, regardless of the fact the maps are images, and the words are words. Mh. Maybe. I am not convinced. If someone took an OSM map and said: Oh, this looks like a nice bike tour, let me write this up in words - yes, that would be derivative. But if someone actually does the trip and then writes up where he's been... For example, in an OSM context, I consider it perfectly legal to use a proprietary map for the planning of a mapping party (i.e. for making the cake and deciding where to send people). Once they actually go there, cycle down the road, and note down the street sign, it doesn't matter what gave them the idea to go there - we are allowed to use the data that has been recorded. I'd grant the same rights to the cycle book writer *provided* that he has actually been there. I would look for hints in his description which are not on the map (e.g. from here you have a nice view of this and that in the distance or watch out for the potholes here or so). If there are indeed none, and the whole text could have been done by someone who just looked at the OSM map and never was there in the first place, then yes, that would be derived - but in that case, abusing OSM data is perhaps the smallest problem with the book ;-) You wouldn't take 12 songs under CC-By-SA, wrap them together in an album, add cover art, add liner notes, change a couple of words in the songs, and then be able to claim the entire CD is your copyright. No, but nobody says that. What you say is take 12 songs under CC-BY-SA, wrap them together in an album, add cover art and liner notes, and you have to release cover art and liner notes under CC-BY-SA, whereas I say that you *only* have to release the songs. I don't think New Holland posting a message on a forum saying Oh, gosh, is that wrong? We won't do it again.. is a good enough answer. I can cite examples of books and magasines getting into a LOT of mess for incorrectly attributing stock images, so how should an entire book, written around the premise that the maps are free be exempt from this license? In my eyes they are not exempt. But mistakes happen and I think their reaction is ok. This is often overlooked but I think that by printing this book and making it available *even* in the form it currently has, they are already *improving* the standing of OSM rather than hurting the project. So yes, they're technically in violation of the license but I recommend cutting them some slack and acknowledging that never before has anyone in the UK made such a convincing public statement of OSM being good quality. Surely .. SURELY the whole point of a CC-BY-SA license in the first place is to *stop* someone taking it and using it in a proprietary media, and instead encouraging people to give something back by making their re-use re-useable? Or am I just tilting at windmills? I think that their re-use must be re-useable, i.e. their maps (which they seem to have slightly improved re. the labelling) must be free for others to copy. I think they have acknowledged that, and I don't think we should aim to make trouble for them just because others have got into trouble for much less. (I'm somewhat uneasy about fighting fire with fire - just because the big greedy bastards sue everyone about the tiniest violations, doesn't mean we have to as well.) And I don't agree with you about the rest of the book; I still think it is not a derived work. But I don't have it in front of me so if on closer inspection it really looks like they haven't even bothered to cycle their roads then that's a problem. I know I'm perhaps too pragmatic here but the question I ask is: Would it have been better (for OSM) if the book hadn't been printed? And my answer is no. Of course others would say yes. And of course it would have been best if the book had been printed with proper attribution and license, which the next edition will no doubt be. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Proposed human readable contributor terms
Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: I've created a proposed version of the human readable contributor terms on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Human_readable The wording can doubtless be improved (please do so!), and maybe there's something more to cover. Let's try to keep it short though. I think the wording is ok, but I would advise against translating it. I believe that presenting a crowdsource-translated summary above an English legalese could be interpreted as misleading the users. Personally, I think that translations are a problem in many places in OSM. Stuff is translated and then starts to rot because whoever did the translation goes hunting for the next non-translated bit. This is just the same as with imports; the translations create documents that nobody cares about, that do not have a community to support them. There seem to be some areas where it works, but I have the impression that triumphantly adding a 23rd language to some page on the Wiki does not, overall, improve quality. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
Erik, Erik Johansson wrote: Obviously a lot of people think Openstreetmap is more than just a collection of coordinates in a db. I think you try to redefine it in a way that supports your PD argument. Firstly, I am not making a PD argument but an ODbL argument here. Secondly, I'm not redefining anything, just pointing out the existing definition. Thirdly, I'm slightly offended by your I've yet to see an argument ... instead of just opinions just as yours. I guess if all I can say is just an opinion while what you say is a proper argument then maybe I'll just recommend that you re-read the previous 2 years of legal-talk. The idea of no restrictions on produced works in ODbL doesn't come out of nowhere. If ODBL existed in the same variants as CC does, this would be easier. An equivalent to CC-BY is currently in the works over at OKFN. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
Ævar, Pretty much they only thing I've ever gotten out of OSM personally (besides exercise and being able to use it on my GPS) is being able to use the various map renderings by ITO World, CloudMade etc. under the same free license as the data. That may well be; but OSM is not, in its core, a project for drawing pretty maps and share-aliking them. (I believe there's a task force on Wikipedia that does this.) The discussion on the current issue of the week[1] seems to indicate that at least some people share that view, or at least feel like being pedantic in enforcing our current license. Even I, not being a supporter of our current license, request that people adhere to its terms; this is out of a basic demand for fair play. I wish we didn't have these restrictive terms but now that we have them, I expect everyone to play by them, and I too have written to people reminding them of their obligations under CC-BY-SA. This does not in any way allow the conclusion that I would be unhappy about losing the opportunity to write license enforcement letters about produced works once we've made the switch. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Viral can be nice
Tim, OSM is not essentially anything at its core. It is different things to different people. I'm talking about the sentence that defines OSM at the top of our Wiki page, which in all likelihood has been there in this form when most of us signed up. If you sign up to a project which claims to be A but to you the project is B, then that's all fine and dandy for you, just don't complain if the project later endorses a license that suits A better than B. The fact that commercial data can't be merged with CC-BY-SA could be said to be a limitation of commerical data, rather than a limitation of CC-BY-SA. You're over-simplifying when you say commercial data. Even GNU FDL data cannot be merged with CC-BY-SA. We have governmental data which is released for noncommercial use only - currently un-mergeable with ours. We have data released for educational use - not usable for the student who wants to plot that onto an OSM base map for his master thesis. This is a serious limitation and leads to many pretty maps *not* being made, or being made with non-OSM data. How is that bad? You tell me. Given a choice of (a) all maps can be made, but sharing them is a the maker's discretion versus (b) only some maps can be made, but once they are made they will always be shared I'd certainly find (a) to be more encouraging to creativity. Can't the same thing apply to maps? And if SA is too restrictive for produced works, why have SA at all? A watered down SA is the worse of all worlds IMHO, which is the ODbL. This has high complexity with few SA rights. The share-alike element in data is stronger with ODbL than it was with CC-BY-SA. Data is, I say it again, what OSM is about. Pretty maps are an offshoot - with OSM data being popular, anyone will be able to make pretty maps themselves, whereas *not* anyone will be able to quickly survey the planet. This does not in any way allow the conclusion that I would be unhappy about losing the opportunity to write license enforcement letters about produced works once we've made the switch. Why are you enforcing terms you don't agree with? lol. Ok, so people might not respect a license that you don't agree with, but why care about fair play when the rules are wrong? I'm German. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
Hi, M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: do we really want to require the 38th party down the line to still attribute OSM no matter how diluted the OSM content has become? yes. Why should it have become diluted? The very nature of a produced work is to dilute OSM content because otherwise it would be a derived database! If you give this up, you do almost the same then releasing PD, and that's indeed what you are best known to advocate for. We *do* want to allow releasing produced works under PD. Note that we are talking produced works here, not the data istself! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 19:43, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not bothered about individual contributions because everyone who contributes *knows* what OSM is like and that he cannot expect to get personal attribution. If someone however has released something under CC-BY-SA without knowing OSM, they have reason to expect that wherever their work is used, they are given credit, and OSM doesn't do that. Whether someone knows OSM or not doesn't change how their contributions should be treated. Both works (in your example) were submitted under the same terms and should be treated exactly the same. I think there is a difference, certainly morally but even legally. If you submit, under CC-BY-SA, data to an online map which clearly does not give the names of all contributors, and later claim that the map was violating your terms, that is something different from publishing your data on a web page under CC-BY-SA and then complaining that someone took it, put it in a web map, and didn't provide attribution. I agree with your *should* be treated the same but I think the evil is lesser in one case than in the other. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using img OSM data
David, there is certainly no limitation on playing around with OSM-derived maps as these are CC-BY-SA 2.0. However it seems cumbersome to me to decompile such a map when you can instead download and inspect the source code of mkgmap, the utility we use to create them (see mkgmap.org). You should be able to learn much more from that than from just decompiling the IMG file! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Hi, Arne Johannessen wrote: How many bakeries are there in London? Without bothering to count, I'd say Greater London surely has a lot more than 100, while The City probably has less. (A hundred is the limit for 'not Substantial' according to the community guideline for the meaning of Substantial.) I wasn't out to discuss the substantial bit. I know that an insubstantial extract is practically unrestricted but what I'm after is using a substantial portion of the data base to create a Produced Work, which may then be distributed under a license of one's choice. If we're talking a Significant portion here, it definitely is a Derived Database in both cases (list and PNG). A reasoning according to which the map image with bakeries painted on would also be a derived database which, as I already said, is surely not the intention of OSM's implementation of the ODbL. or else the whole ODbL Produced Works idea would fall over and be useless So far I have yet to discover its actual use. Pointers are appreciated. :) The actual use is that you can create map images from OSM data which then do NOT fall under the ODbL. This is essential if one is to combine data from, say, a CC-BY-SA data source and our ODbL data source into one map image; were the image considered a Derived Database, the ODbL viral aspect would kick in and require you to license the image under ODbL which would clash with CC-BY-SA's requirement to license the image under CC-BY-SA. Not being able to produce a map image that contains an OSM base map and combines them with elements from another share-alike license would be a show stopper for the whole ODbL effort. We're doing open data specifically because we want to encourage people creating derived works, not to stifle that activity. This is what the Produced Work thing might have meant: Cases where the database's contents appear outside the database theme's domain. No, the Produced Work specifically meant something like this: http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/12/2076/1410.png It is important to us that something like that does not require to be licensed under ODbL. I agree that if you have recently joined the discussion, or perhaps simply read the ODbL and thinking of a database in terms of the EU database directive, you'd be tempted to say that a PNG image like that must be a database. But if we don't manage to override that definition with a community norm, then one of the most promising aspects of ODbL, namely making it easier to deal with maps produced from our data, becomes void. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Hi, Arne Johannessen wrote: Note that just rendering the OSM database in PNG format doesn't necessarily create a Produced Work. We have to be careful about the definition of database here. According to the legal definition of database which has been quoted here often enough, any PNG file made from OSM data would qualify as a database, which would render the whole concept of a Produced Work totally useless for OSM. Thus we have agreed that we are willing to consider a PNG file to be a Produced Work unless - and I don't find the specific wording on the Wiki right now but I think there was something like this - someone creates the file specially with the purpose of transporting the database through it. In that light, I fail to see the difference between a PNG image that represents a list of bakeries in London (which you and Andy would say clearly is a derived database or a substantial excerpt) and a PNG image with a map of London and little bread symbols where there's a bakery (which we do not want to be a derived database nor a substantial excerpt, or else the whole ODbL Produced Works idea would fall over and be useless - for example we could not mix our map with data licensed under another license). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms latest
Hi, Mike Collinson wrote: - defining active contributor as a natural person. This serves the purpose of no bots. OPEN QUESTION: We are not sure about this one as this it excludes corporations or other legally organised entities. If they have multiple accounts for individual staff, it has the reverse effect. Perhaps not a good idea? Comments welcome. At least in Germany, only natural persons can ever have copyright on anything (it's not called copyright here, it's called Urheberrecht, rights of the creator; of course the creator can always give someone else an exclusive license but the root of the right remains with the natural person). So that would make sense. On the other hand, database rights can, and usually are, accrued by corporations and not individuals... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] is this usage of osm a violation of cc-by-sa?
Jonas, Jonas Stein wrote: On the webpage there is still no change. What did they say? There is a suggested process for dealing with such cases on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution This process does not involve reminding the legal-talk list every two weeks about obscure German Children's Paradise web sites that still haven't got their attribution right ;-) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms draft changes
Hi, Mike Collinson wrote: can someone sue on the basis of misuse of their data? Our understanding from Counsel is: Yes. OSMF can on the basis of collective/database rights. An individual contributor can if it concerns data that they added. What would be the legal basis for that? Say I add a whole town to OSM. You then use that data with blatant disregard for the license. If I want to sue you, then you must have violated a right of mine, or broken a contract with me. Given that we are in the process of throwing away a license that is rooted in copyright because we say that copyright doesn't apply - which of my rights would you have violated, or which contract broken? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] You may not sublicense your rights under these Terms to any person
Hi, Stefan Neufeind wrote: Hmm, so actually we'd need some volunteers on a toilet trip to go there, check the toilet details and map it from their own site-survey. I'm sure the .au community can provide interesting foodstuffs to further that objective! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Are we strict enough with imports ?
Hi, Jean-Guilhem Cailton wrote: Ok, but please do not forget that in crisis situations (e.g. Haiti), there could be people dying while the deliberation would be taking place... This is something to be discussed later, I guess, but my take is that we should separate crisis stuff from the rest of OSM, to the point of having separate databases. We'd still use the normal OSM tools but there would be a special API server for a crisis region. There, people could do whatever they please (even more so than in normal OSM) without interference from others. After the crisis has subsided, temporary structures removed and so on, work could then start on moving selected items from the crisis map over into the normal OSM map. If this is not done, I sense a potential for conflicts of all kind. As apparent in the dramatic wording you chose above (there could be people dying...), a humanitarian crisis anywhere could put strain on the project as a whole: What, you want to take the database offline for a weekend to perform the move to API 0.8 that you have planned for half a year? But there could be people dying! - What, the database didn't work for a whole night and the admin was in the pub? But there could have been people dying! - What, you want to do a world-wide day of post box mapping? But this is going to slow down the API and there could be people dying!, and so on. Being able to provide value in humanitarian crises is a side-effect of a healthy OSM - not a core purpose of OSM. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Public map with osm violates CC-by-SA
Jonas, Jonas Stein wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Wandertafel has the wrong license information been fixed already? Those who know don't read this list. Those who read this list mostly don't read German. A posting to talk-de would probably return more results! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [odc-discuss] Draft of an Open Data Commons Attribution License
Hi, SteveC wrote: then we also need a NC version. NC licenses are not compatible with OKFN's own definition of Open Knowledge, Paragraph 8: (quote) 8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in a business, or from being used for military research. Comment: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open material from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. (end quote) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and if I don't react then that counts as an abstain vote. Oh, and there should most definitely be more than one attempt at making contact. I assumed it went without saying. I must remember not to make too many of these assumptions. :) Well in the current setup, it is in OSMF's interest to reach you, because if they want to change the license, they need a yes from 50% of active mappers. (It is not sufficient to simply write to all active mappers, and then if 100 of them reply and 51 are in favour, the change goes through.) So that hurdle is rather high; anyone who cannot be reached or who doesn't respond is by default a no vote. That's why I think it is valid to try to keep the pool of people smaller by saying active contributor with the definition behind it. If we were to say we want to poll every single contributor past and present, then it would be absolutely impossible to even get 50% of them to respond, much less to understand the proposal or be bothered to vote. In such a scenario, you could not possibly put the hurdle at 50% of the electorate but you would have to say 50% of people who respond. And this then requires some sort of definition of how much time and money must be spent on OSMF side to reach the person (what, my email address was invalid, if you had just googled my name you would have found my new address... etc.) So: EITHER we do 50% of all active contributors (with no reply being a no vote), or we do 50% of all those who have ever contributed *and* bother to reply. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I actually think it should be scrapped completely, because it doesn’t matter whether somebody isn’t active any more. Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's why, while desirable, it is not practical to give them a say. Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and if I don't react then that counts as an abstain vote. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright assignment to the OSMF. You have said that multiple times already, but I - and, it seems, others - don't view it that way. You do not assign copyright to OSMF; you only grant them a license to sublicense. That makes this recent article by Michael Meeks on copyright assignment in free software very relevant: If the article is only relevant to copyright assignment situations, then I don't think it is relevant for us. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
Hi, Anthony wrote: Where is the actual legal phrasing of this license to sublicense? In the paragraph just below the actual legal phrasing of the copyright assignment! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
