Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
On 16 November 2011 08:07, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:16:47 +0100, Michael Collinson wrote: The numbers: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png - each square represents one user, weighted by size of contribution. Green=accepted, Red=Declined or has not responded. This displays an 800x600 grey image with black border for me. There was an issue with this week's planet + changesets export/dump. I have fixed it and the treemap will be fixed in around an hour. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic. The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues Richard Fairhurst wrote a good piece on the legals around aerial imagery in 2009 Aerial photography, cock fighting and vodka bottles - http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/100.html / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 26 June 2011 17:22, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote: Hi Grant, can I still expect a contructive reply to my email answering your question about my concerns, or should I simply hit the „decline“ button? Hi Olaf, Sorry I have not had time to think through your suggestions fully. Planning / Executing API+WWW+DB server move, general sysadmin, day job and addressing TimSC's demands list have been taken up a fair bit of my time over the last 2 weeks. Briefly The main issue I see, is allowing per contributor opt out of a potential future licensing change has the significant flaw that the contributor is not just removing his/her individual edits, but also would be destroying the works of many others who have built on the existing work in good faith. With your proposal those that come before will always have a veto over the work of new members, this is unfair. The edits that I have added today (under CC-BY-SA, or whatever current license) is available to me today and in the future under that specific license using the planet file + diffs available at the time of my edits. If the project gets-taken-over-by-commercial-pigs / changes-to-a-license-I-do-not-agree-with / etc I still have all my work. / Grant Olaf [Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer, 17.06.2011, 14:53]: Hi Grant, Please list the problematic language you are referring to... Your email on the 18th of Jan or your email in reply to Kai on the 6th Feb. I see several small problems in the CT and two bigger problems. The bigger problems are related to the definition of active contributor. The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to contribute. I have been repeatedly asked to trust the OSMF that they would never prevent people from contributing (and thereby loosing their right to vote), because this would destroy the community and so be against the interest of the OSMF. At the same time, I am currently prevented from contributing, even though I have publicly stated several times that I support the planned license change and only see problems in the CT, and even though I am willing to license my contributions under very broad terms to the OSMF. The second problem is that the group entitled to vote is defined in a very restricting way. For example, someone who contributes for a period of 25 years and does all contibuting during holidaytime (e.g. in January and in July only) is never entitled to vote. The idea of giving only a part of the community the right to vote sees very unfair to me. An easy way to fix these problems would be to simply give all past contributors the right to vote, unless they fail to respond to an email that asks them to confirm their wish to still have the voting right. This could be combined with a minimum threshold (e.g. a minimum total amount of contributions or of contribution days/months). I will not discuss the minor problems now, because I fear personal attacks from people who have a different motivation for contributing if I point these out. If the OSMF is willing to adress the major problems, then I might also contribute some ideas about how to fix the minor issues, but I will not do so while the threat to remove me from the community by force is still active. Olaf ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 21 June 2011 05:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. OpenStreetMap.org has had Contributor Terms for at least the last 5 years. See the CTs history here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
On 8 June 2011 10:49, Quintin Driver quentindrive...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ? Richard Fairhurst is not a member of the LWG or the OSMF Board. He was a member of 2007 OSMF Board. Skobbler, Cloudmade and MapQuest have not had any private discussion with the LWG. Microsoft/Bing had a few questions concerning the ODbL in 2010. See the minutes tagged with Microsoft/Bing here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes#License_Working_Group LWG is made up of: - Henk Hoff - http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios - Grant Slater (me) - Non GIS field - Michael Collinson - Non GIS field. Former board member. http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=Board_Member_Biosoldid=392 - Steve Coast - Resigned Cloudmade 2010. Employee @ Bing. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios - Richard Weait - Resigned CloudMade 2009. Private contractor Former LWG members - Matt Amos - Retrenched from CloudMade 2009, MapQuest current. - Mikel Maron - http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios - Jordan Hatcher - Invited expert from Open Data Commons / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 09:35, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: 3. OSMF to choose a new license that is free and open, present it to OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the 2/3 of mappers hurdle can hardly be called allow the board to tweak the license. The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Of course the OSMF would never do anything like that... Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the majority of the contributors the stupid evil OSMF you propose would have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS before they could run such a rigged system. The sysadmin team and community would have long jumped ship and started another project. Additionally the door would be open to taking legal action against said stupid evil OSMF and their data would be tainted. Grant Part of OSM Sysadmin Team. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Recent spike in the CT acceptance graph
On 31 May 2011 00:44, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be a huge jump in the rate of CT acceptances (and declines, if you look close enough). About 3000 acceptances in a span of 36 hours: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Did somebody do a mass email or something? Yes, this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODBL/2011_May_Letter_Translations / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under any other license than CC-BY-SA? I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not quite sure I understand this one. What do you mean by upload .. .under a licence? That doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean, does CC-BY-SA permit a contributor to contribute to OSMF under the existing contributor terms? (Answer: no) or do you mean something else? Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a little clearer. Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a CC-BY-SA license. Suppose I take that work and make from it a derivative work. Can I then give a copy of that derivative work to a third party who insists that it is provided to them under an agreement that is like the OSM Contributor Terms 1.2.4? In other words, if I've agreed to the current contributor terms, does the act of submitting CC-BY-SA licensed content to OSM voilate the terms of the CC-BY-SA license? As a bit of background, the process of modifying the OSM map is a three step process: 1) A user gets a subset of the map from the OSM web-site 2) The user makes modifications to that map on their own computer 3) The user gives the modifications back to OSMF via the OSM web-site. All content within the OSM database is published as CC-BY-SA 2.0. This extends comprehensively however it is obtained. There is no special route that content takes when someone wants to edit something. They request a subset of the map (step 1) which is downloaded to the user's computer where they then modify it (step 2). This subset is licensed under CC-BY-SA just like any other content from OSM and their modifications are a Derivative Work. When user has finished modifying the map they then send it back to OSM (step 3) and in doing so they affirm that the modified content is granted to OSMF under a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence, or whatever the version of the contributor terms are that they originally signed up to. It seems to me that the CTs get in the way of the loop that is supposed to exist that permits someone to get OSM content, modify it, and then give it back. If the content in this loop is CC-BY-SA licensed then putting up a CT gateway or barrier would appear to break that loop. 80n see: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/315754580/history This is just silly. jumped-the-license yet? Are you going to start suing fellow OSM contributors now? Kindly sue me, you know my address. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 18:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: 2. Has the OSMF any commercial intentions ? I cannot imagine that OSMF want to sell the OSM-database to anyone (??!); or is the following phrase meant to transfer (sub-license) the right for commercial applications to our customers and does it need better words ...! From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. The OSMF is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales, the foundation has no paid staff and it is made up exclusively of unpaid volenteers. The OSMF board is made up of democratically elected volenteers. I am not an OSMF apologist, the OSMF definitely does have warts like: Where are the Board Minutes for the last few months? or what happend to the GPS2Go program?... and other gripes... But I am reminded they are volenteers too. The income and capital of the Company shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Company; and no part of the income or capital shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, to the members of the Company, whether by way of dividend or bonus or otherwise in the form of profit. source: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_Association 80n was treasurer when the OSMF was formed. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] definitions of free and open
On 11 April 2011 08:04, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/4/11 Krysha Krysha kry...@rambler.ru: Hello! Why in the Contributor Terms does not contain definitions of free and open. Different organizations may have different understanding of these terms. For example, there is a Microsoft Open License ... The absence of these definitions stops me from taking those Contributor Terms. I think the idea is that it will be up to contributors to decide whether a licence is free and open rather than leaving it to lawyers to do so. In addition, Contributor Terms v1.2.4 also now reference http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ Source: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] RAND Corporation license violation
On 30 March 2011 13:56, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: I was checking some papers at work today and accidentally found this license violation (both Attribution and Share-Alike) by the RAND Corporation: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1100.pdf (Page 20(42)) It seems like a modified Marble screenshot to me (no attribution whatsoever). The image is taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_high-speed_rail_network.png / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On 5 January 2011 12:09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. Can you clarify this? I understood that the CTs were per-person, not per-account, so if you are unable to agree to them for existing contributions you would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have to agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions too). Repeated again... per account. The 1.0 version of the CT terms are not clear, but the intent is per account. It has been fixed in the current draft revision of the CTs which should hopefully go live in the next few weeks. Regards Grant Member of the LWG ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 04:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 January 2011 04:37, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first. I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such data would be removed, not may be removed, or there has to be firm statements that attribution would be a requirement of future licenses or that data simply couldn't be incorporated as far as I can see. Our mapping is (likely) illegal in North Korea and a few other regions. I bet we would not remove the data even if formally demanded by the North Korean Government etc. The language choice of language is intentional. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?
On 19 December 2010 20:16, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf That's quite curious. Several non-Microsoft sources have indicated that the license will be subject to future revisions. And yet the file name of this document claims it to be FINAL. Like I said, I've seen some crappy licenses... haha. Yes, there was work on that license before it was released. It would be great it all software stopped bringing out new releases once they had hit release version 1.0 / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?
On 19 December 2010 16:53, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Try the google cache version: http://bit.ly/eUjkKS Yes Grant, I have read both of those, in particular the statement on both which says To learn more and see the full terms of use, please see the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license. And the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license link points to the OpenGeoData blog post which has the license + downloadable PDF. http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details Therefore to comment on the terms of use I decided to refer to the licence, and not the blog posts you refer to, since the blogs tell me to refer to the licence. Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else... Not what applies for OSM. Could you please refer me to the source for why these terms do not apply to OSM? Particularly in view of the fact that, as I referred to earlier, in the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license it says the terms do apply (see section 6) Open JOSM or Potlatch2, the Terms-Of-Use link that is specified is: http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details And sure, this should be more explict. We have permission to derive NEW works from their imagery on condition that the new works go into OSM. Good, please show me where this is clearly stated. Then we can end the discussion. Better detailed here: http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 And now add to that we have explit permission to use the imagery In fact, as I have also pointed out before, it is unclear that Bing Maps Imagery Editor license actually apply to end users anyway, in which case the only bit applicable to end users is [3] which says deriving works is not allowed. See above. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote: About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority of us in the project are open data, open source and free software advocates. To us 'Free' means libré gratis and 'open' is being able to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on our terms. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 4. Data Imports Importer in that context sits better than mapper. The person who imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has always been the case. The import guidelines strongly advise: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines Imports like BP service stations Australia are a problem, because the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or ANY future license. Your remark of LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it. doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been doing. Kind regards Grant LWG member. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 00:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false statement being made repeatedly and you don't bother to ask the person to retract their comment and to refrain from pushing the same false statements in future. Instead you choose to make emotive statements trying to belittle those that would like to see a lot more honesty and transparency on the license debacle. I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and on with vexatious claims. What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you point them out? List archive links prefered. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). [citation needed] / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 02:22, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). [citation needed] You could have found it faster than replying to that email... http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22lie+of+omission%22 Are you being seriously? To call Frederik a lier based on this email? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html Quoting from: http://blog.nestoria.co.uk/geofabrik-wins-the-best-elevator-pitch-award (State of The Map 2010) Geofabrik was voted and acclaimed as the Best Elevator Pitch. Voters appreciated the straightforward business proposition: pay me money to save to a lot of time. Frederic delivered an *impressive and honest pitch* and this was reflected on the poll count. emphasis my own. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. Here is some data: node id=915100779 lat=51.5798222 lon=-0.3341762 version=2 changeset=6058195 user=Walter Schlögl uid=78656 visible=true timestamp=2010-10-16T14:40:13Z tag k=name v=McDonald's/ tag k=amenity v=fast_food/ tag k=cuisine v=burger/ /node The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. Creativity is used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create the halo around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik stylesheet. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:23, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. Here is some data: node id=915100779 lat=51.5798222 lon=-0.3341762 version=2 changeset=6058195 user=Walter Schlögl uid=78656 visible=true timestamp=2010-10-16T14:40:13Z tag k=name v=McDonald's/ tag k=amenity v=fast_food/ tag k=cuisine v=burger/ /node The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. Creativity is used in the above data. Typo, creativity is *NOT* used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create the halo around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik stylesheet. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 14:14, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Here is some data: node id=915100779 lat=51.5798222 lon=-0.3341762 version=2 changeset=6058195 user=Walter Schlögl uid=78656 visible=true timestamp=2010-10-16T14:40:13Z tag k=name v=McDonald's/ tag k=amenity v=fast_food/ tag k=cuisine v=burger/ /node The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. If you think the position of this restaurant is a fact then you really need to watch the Horizon documentary where Alan Davis tries to measure the length of a piece of string: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv Hehe, I'll remember that next time I ask for a pint of beer; after all I could be missing at least 0.261485 millilitres. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 14:57, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in Europe - is that so? What difference does it make? It does not effect ODbL and that is what we are here to discuss. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...
On 5 October 2010 08:28, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes: To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the current contributor terms. Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them. Automatic presumed compatibility no. Receiving permission from restrictive data sources is not a bad thing in my mind. Alternatively we could just move to the Never-Release-Anything-Non-Public-Non-Commercial-No-Share-License(tm) and import _ANY_ data we want. ;-) Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 1 October 2010 21:55, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Would you kindly indicate how you are going to remove it? Discussion on handling how to measure 'clean feed' data was started here: (same problem) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html There is also some minor addition discussion in the previous weeks minutes 3rd Aug 2010: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_74fzvpnxds Jim* is also waiting on the publishing of the ODbL accepts list like these rest of us. LWG received permission to publish the list from the OSMF Board in the last week. * = Jim as a member of the foundation asked to join the LWG. LWG discussed on 13th July call and his request was accepted. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_2hnm5xwcp He hasn't yet been able to attend many calls. Regards Grant ___ 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
On 29 September 2010 13:15, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final decision on choice needs to be made now. Practice has clearly changed since 2008. If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning when the OS data was released that it was incompatible? The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. But the Licensing Working Group (LWG) is making further clarification revisions on the Contributor Terms and these will need to be checked. Regards Grant Part of the Licensing Working Group. ___ 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
On 29 September 2010 18:34, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes? The message was via email outside the weekly minutes. But it was badly recorded in the minutes of the 07/09/2010 with an action item on Mike, who wasn't present at that meeting. - Mike- take up Ordnance Survey OpenData license compatibility with OpenDataCommons. (done) Legal wording needed before announce. (pending) Please quote me with full context: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. But the Licensing Working Group (LWG) is making further clarification revisions on the Contributor Terms and these will need to be checked. Regards Grant ___ 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
On 24 September 2010 10:36, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Dave F. dave...@... writes: OS Opendata compatibility with the new proposed license Contribution Terms as they're worded *at this moment*. The current contributor terms for new accounts require you grant a licence to the OSMF to do 'any act that is restricted by copyright', subject to section 3 which says that OSMF will distribute under CC-BY-SA, ODbL/DbCL, or 'another free and open licence'. Since you are not the copyright holder for the OS OpenData content, I don't believe you can grant such a licence to the OSMF. If you interpret the text more loosely and don't require that you grant a licence as it says, but instead that you make sure the OSMF has the necessary permission one way or another, then they still aren't quite right, because the permission given by the Ordnance Survey doesn't really allow 'any free and open licence'. Ordnance Survey's OpenData license specifically allows sub-licensing, restricted by the need for attribution. There isn't a conflict with the 'free and open licence' when section 4 (attribution) is taken into account. Regards Grant ___ 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
On 24 September 2010 12:10, David Dean dd...@ieee.org wrote: Grant, On 24 September 2010 20:21, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Ordnance Survey's OpenData license specifically allows sub-licensing, restricted by the need for attribution. There isn't a conflict with the 'free and open licence' when section 4 (attribution) is taken into account. Section 4 only ensures that OSM provide attribution, not that the end user of the OpenData data in OSM has to. For example, hypothetically a 2/3 majority of OSMers could vote for CC0 under the CTs, but this would not be compatible for OpenData as the end-user publishers of the CC0 OSM data would not be obliged to attribute either OSM or OpenData. Yes, in this hypothetical future scenario we would no longer be compatible (in my view) with the OpenData License. I simply don't see the OSMF + Community putting such a scenario forward without them first sorting out the issue. Regards Grant ___ 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
On 24 September 2010 14:06, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The CTs state: You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder Which seems fairly clear to me. It then goes on to say If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder which is the relevant clause. It's obviously not clear enough for some people. See the working draft of the Contributor Terms 1.1 where this has been fixed. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_81272pvt54 Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 17 September 2010 11:26, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: With this response b) was seen as compatible. Under a) it was advised there is an issue of sub-licensing. Asking source author for permission to contribute under CT was an option; as was to keep distributing said specific data under license. Item b) is still open AFAIK. If b) is compatible, could you clarify what you mean by it still being open? Yes, it was late, made a mistake. I meant a) CC-BY is still open and not yet resolved. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 16 September 2010 19:29, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 16/09/2010 16:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: If it isn't will this mean previous traced/imported Opendata will have to be removed? If the incompatibilities in the licenses / CTs are not resolved before the OSM license change goes ahead, then as far as I can see, the only option would be to remove all OS OpenData derived mapping from OSM. This saddens me. I find it hard to conceive that members of OSM were lobbying the OS/Government to release data for public use, whilst at the same time (by the same people?) creating a new license that's incompatible with it. This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_ compatible with ODbL and the Contributor Terms. Specifically section 4 of the Contributor Terms provides a mechanism for attribution. I have asked Robert if he could share the email with the LWG, it would be interesting to see the question asked and the full legal reasoning. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 16 September 2010 21:26, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_ compatible with ODbL and the Contributor Terms. Specifically section 4 of the Contributor Terms provides a mechanism for attribution. Grant, who is giving you legal advice? Can you quote (or paraphrase) the advice you have been given please? OSMF's legal council. Sure. In my own words and interpritation. LWG asked advice on the compatibility of using data licensed under a) CC-BY and; b) OS OpenData License ( http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf ) when a contributor uses that data to contribute under the ODbL + Contributor Terms ( http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms ) , it was added by LWG that section 4 of CT (as linked and worded) provide a mechanism for attribution. Reply was that on b) explicit permission to sub-license is granted by their license with the conditions that required attribution is given and sublicensees keep said attribution. With this response b) was seen as compatible. Under a) it was advised there is an issue of sub-licensing. Asking source author for permission to contribute under CT was an option; as was to keep distributing said specific data under license. Item b) is still open AFAIK. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
On 7 September 2010 13:12, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote: Is Google Maps(MapMaker) now starting to use OSM data? I've been adding a lot of data to OSM this past month, and have seen that data also appearing on Google Maps. Most blatant is a screw-up I made to the coastline in my area... Google now has it too :-) Can you point to an example? / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open: - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual contributors?) - with ODbL, you'd have to ask OSMF, which will be the owner of the data. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Both CC-BY-SA and ODbL allow forking without needing to ask for permission. The ability to fork an ODbL dataset was a specific question the LWG asked legal council. Legal council answered in the affirmative that anyone can fork an ODbL licensed dataset. Relicensing a CC-BY-SA, ODbL or GPL etc license project would require asking each of the contributors for permission (or replacing their contribution). Regards Grant ___ 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
On 29 August 2010 07:23, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Duane, Not at all, I never consider that OSm would move to an incompatible contract system and away from copyright/copyleft. That idea is totally alien to me. h4ck3rm1k3, please update the wiki to list under what license you received the information: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_iMMAP_Import Currently I cannot find listed at all. Am I correct in understanding the data is from the 1970s and 1980s? I have trusted that OSMF would treat the old data as valuable, if they don't, then it is not my problem. Of course we value all existing data but a few unfortunatly licensed imports should not put undue restrict restrictions on the project. Regards Grant ___ 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
On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: please see this as well, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual information. Quote: Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases. Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/ Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information: Reference: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision. ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under our CC-BY-SA license. they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract... Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the Database Directive but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. PLEASE... Follow ups on legal-talk list. Thread started here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004221.html Regards Grant ___ 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
On 29 August 2010 00:48, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 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. Since the data is CC-by-SA, it doesn't seem likely. From what I can see the data is CC-BY. http://www.archive.org/details/Kosova_Road_Data_from_iMMAP The attribution question is still being dealt with by LWG's legal council. I don't see there being an issue. As has been said before and recorded in the LWG minutes, the LWG will of course look at these situations individually and also help re-negotiate existing imports where needed. John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. Regards Grant ___ 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
On 29 August 2010 01:33, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years? Hell no. I see it being sorted out fairly quickly. As per update email to talk-au list the LWG has been having difficulty arranging a telephone conference call upto now because of the number of timezones involved. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 4 August 2010 14:00, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The whole relicensing effort would be a bit of a non-starter if this deletion process cannot be done. During late 2008 and early 2009 a user inappropriately imported (and amend existing OSM data) into OSM for Lithuania from what was strongly believed to be copyrighted data. The data accounted for roughly 20% of the Lithuania data. A custom tool was developed which used the methods as described. The tool was used by the Data Working Group to revert his edits/import including the sock puppet accounts he was using at the time. 80n weren't you a member of the OSMF board at the time? It went through the board. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On 25 July 2010 18:49, Todd Huffman huffma...@gmail.com wrote: Can you point me to a reference on this? Ideally there would be a resource which laid out which jurisdictions one can put something into public domain. LMGTFY; http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 / Grant ___ 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?
On 2 June 2010 21:03, Phil Monger phil...@gmail.com wrote: So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across this one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if they don't work let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for the lack of a close focus!!) : Hi Phil This has already been address and the publisher has promised to make a correction. Complaint: http://compton.nu/2010/05/how-not-to-credit-openstreetmap/ Resolution: http://compton.nu/2010/05/well-done-new-holland-pubishers/ The current edition does have a tiny attribution at the back inside cover if I recall. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Yes it does. The LWG sought specific legal advise on this. We wouldn't be an open project if this was not allowed. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL / Licensing Working Group - Discussion Podcast
Matt Amos [1] and Mike Collinson [2], members of the LWG [3] together with Peter Batty [4], Richard Fairhurst [5] and Steve Coast [6] got together earlier today to discuss OpenStreetMap Licensing, ODbL and some of the licensing debate. http://www.opengeodata.org/2009/12/08/license-working-group-podcast/ Direct Download link: http://www.opengeodata.org/casts/2009/LWG.mp3 Please trim replies to legal-t...@. 1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Matt 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ewmjc 3: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Licensing_Working_Group 4: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pmbatty 5: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Richard 6: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Steve or preferably: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can feature names be determined from copyrighted data?
2009/7/30 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Pavel Zubkou wrote: Can I look at *copyrighted* map for a name of lake that is placed at about 10km northen from city X? It is best to be paranoid. Live in the belief that all in copyright maps are covered in Trap Streets [1] (or names) waiting to catch us out. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA really so ineffective?
2009/7/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: I just checked out the BBC web site and while they say please get a parent's permission before taking part in any bbc.co.uk community if you're under 16, there is nothing remotely referencing COPPA there. Nor does it say if you're under 13 you may not look at our web site. Quote next section... If you're under 16: - Never reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example, school, telephone number, your full name, home address or email address). Not capturing any personal information from under 13 year olds, effectively makes them except from COPPA. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL 1.0 Final Released
Legal-talk, Not yet announced here... ODbL 1.0 was officially released on Monday by Open Data Commons... http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Our potential implementation plan: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan#Current Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial defined article updated
Peter Miller wrote: Possibly we should change its name to 'Substantial - Community Norm' or 'Substantial - Guidance'? +1: Substantial - Community Norm / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial defined article updated
Lauri Hahne wrote: -1 Substantial - Community norm +1 Substantial - Guidance +1 Substantial - Guideline Page renamed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline Old page has redirect to new page. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Defining Substantial in OSM's Context
Legal, The ODbL (potential future OpenStreetMap license) relies on the meaning of Substantial. The ODbL 1.0rc defines it as: Substantial - Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents. On behalf of the Licensing Working Group I have started a wiki document to define what we as a project believe Substantial to be in OpenStreetMap's context. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_Defined The ODbL 1.0 Release Candidate is available here: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Regards, Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Defining Substantial in OSM's Context
Lauri Hahne wrote: I think the problem here is that our own definition of substantial is by no means binding. The definition of substantial in ODbL comes pretty straight from EU's database directive and the definition is ultimately up to courts to decide. I should have been clearer. This is supplementary advice and final definition would still be up to the License, EU database directive and a court decision. As suggested in #osm irc channel, this is more a community norm. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] API + Licensing Update
SteveC has posted 2 import updates rolled into 1. http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=459 Shaun McDonald has also just announced the launch of Crap-O-Surface Detector with OSM smoothness tag support. http://blog.shaunmcdonald.me.uk/2009/04/the-crap-o-surface-detector/ Any other important April 1st announcements I miss? / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, SteveC wrote: In the past couple of license working group meetings we've been trying to figure out how to get more input from the community on everything without descending in to a free-for-all. Does that mean that what we've so far collected on the Wiki (and the lists, and the co-ment site) is considered as having descended into a free-for-all and thus by implication somehow worthless? (Still struggling to see the negative in free-for-all but you seem to be convinced that the license must not be discussed by all.) My views, not the Licensing Working Group (LWG) The issues from the Wiki have recently been sent to the licensing legal council, LWG haven't yet had an answer. I am not a lawyer and even as a member of the licensing working group I am unsuitable to answer most (all?) of the _legal_ questions. OSM process discussion I can handle... Item from the minutes: http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/licensing-working-group-minutes-2009-03-06/ * Open community call + IRC sessions in order to address questions. Weekend scheduled. March 14th, 4PM tentative. 2 hours. Technical chair needed (Andy?) w/ another media open for raising hands (another irc channel). Agenda needed, designed by community, with times for each issue (3-4 issues). You say that issues should be raised on IRC; does that mean that you only want to discuss *additional* issues that are not yet on the Wiki, or are you basically requesting that people copy+paste the Wiki pages into IRC if they want to affirm the importance of these issues? Or is this more of a psychological exercise where Joe Mapper is allowed to speak his mind and be heard to make him happy (in which case it would be ok for 10 people in a row to say the same thing). See above. We waiting for reply. Licensing Working Group (LWG) going through the questions on the Wiki to make sure we have forwarded all the relevant legal question. Wiki will likely be updated in that process. The wiki isn't the only medium and we may have accidentally overlooked some other questions. The phone call is an attempt to address this and encourage more people to feel part of the process. Maybe we should hold the telephone call in Esperanto or Volapük. But seriously... Maybe transcribe the first call and translate and follow up the call with a German call or German mailing lists discussion, whichever is best for the regional community. Then again, the LWG may have made a bad decision here, we are human after all. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License working group meeting minutes - 2/2/2009
SteveC wrote: I disagree Grant I think the first agenda item should be how to pull in more people, how to open up the process and have people contribute and connect better now that the license is finally out. Confusion... I'm was referring to the first * of http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/working-group-minutes/licensing-working-group-minutes-2009-02-02/ Agenda going forward... Yes I agree. Regards Grant On 4 Mar 2009, at 15:09, Grant Slater wrote: http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/working-group-minutes/ I believe the first agenda item is what pushed towards the suggestion of using the Factual Information License for individual contributions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL). The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap's expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure that the license is the best possible license for us. The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered. The license is now available at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and you are welcome to make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list also at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ up until 20th March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and comments should be made there as part of that process. Attached below is our proposed adoption plan and the latest will be at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan . This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on the discussion page for the plan: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan . In summary, we'd like to give time for final license comments to be absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the current version of the new license to the community for adoption and then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait until the final version before formally reviewing the license. Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed Use Cases http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases and his responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation covered by the ODbL. There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on. If you would like to help, please give input at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues For instance: Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license? The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives? And implementation What Ifs ... for example, what if the license is not accepted? Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the process. -- All dates approximate for review. License Plan 27th February: * This draft adoption plan made public to legal and talk list with the draft license text made available by the Open Data Commons (with facility for comments back) . Local contacts asked to assist in passing on the message, and subsequent announcements. 2nd March: * Working group meeting. Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments; What If scenario planning. 12th March: * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to date. 20th March: *End of ODbL comment period. 28 March: *ODbL 1.0 is expected to be released by Open Data Commons at The Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) London event. 31st March: * OSMF Board endorses licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd January) to vote (1 week) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the community for adoption. What follows is based on a positive response from the OSMF members... + 1 week: * Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and are emailed a notice. * Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL. + 2 weeks? * Require people to respond to the licensing question. How? Should we deny API access otherwise? +1 month: *
[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Work Group update, 2009/01/30
Legal-Talk, Apologies but do due to a scheduling conflict, today's meeting is being rescheduled for early next week. We'll report back then. Regards Grant / Licensing Work Group. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Liz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me) who's
listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
interest.
That's the way Australian law works.
If I am on a Board (which I am) and some other aspect of my life, even
non-commercial could affect my decision making I have to declare the
interest.
OSMF Board member bios, declaring other interests.
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-member-bios/
Regards
Grant
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trademark
Nic Roets wrote: I don't know about coca-cola-sucks.org http://coca-cola-sucks.org but coca-cola-sucks.co.za http://coca-cola-sucks.co.za should not be too difficult. See http://hellcom.co.za/ Not quite... Hellcom/Hellkom is a play on the name of South Africa's telecom operator Telkom and a critic of Telkom's monopolistic practises. Hellkom was sued by Telkom for defamation and trademark infringement. It got ugly. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Telkom%20v%20Hellkom%20a%20never%20ending%20battle.htm Telkom likely didn't like the negative press and withdrew the case. http://www.hellkom.co.za/news/local/1093-Hellkom-case-dropped---Moneyweb.htm / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Cloudmade
Nick Black wrote: ... Right now we're looking into a ticketing system that we can use to track emails to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. So if anyone knows a good free as in speech (we're happy to pay, but we'd rather be able to hack at the source code if needed) ticketing system, please shout out. RT: Request Tracker (GPL) http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/ Well support and high customisable. http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/InstallationGuides / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
