Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voting as Associate Member
An example of a situation where Associate Members are not allowed to vote on is any change to the AoA. Cheers, Henk -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] Verzonden: woensdag 23 juli 2014 17:29 Aan: OSM Legal Talk Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Voting as Associate Member Hi all, Could anyone provide some insight into voting as a Normal Member vs as an Associate Member of the Foundation? Reading (76) of the AoA (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association) this would cover most voting situations I have encountered, but can anyone give an example of a situation where I would be entitled to vote as a Normal Member but not as an Associate Member? See membership types here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership Thanks, -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmannmichaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: May I remind you a litte bit on the history of the licence change... (all as far as I know) While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? To my recollection, there was not a question on what specific license we wanted, but what kind of elements the license should have. Attribution and Share-Alike where two elements an OSM license should have. Just to be clear: I was not part of the panel, nor was I actively involved with the Foundation at that time. Cheers, Henk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Op 14-08-11 19:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schreef: [Henk Hoff, 14.08.2011, 19:00]: If contributing in 3 different months during the last year would be too much of a burden, are you then really involved? If the sysadmins block your account because they want to force through a future CT update that you deem problematic, then it is simply not possible to contribute in 3 different months. The situation would change dramatically if the sysadmins were to guarantee that they will never remove edit rights as they currently do. Sysadmins are not just blocking accounts. If you're referring to the fact that you haven't agreed with the CT and therefore cannot edit anymore ... That's part of the democratic process, not the sysadmins. There has been an long and extensive process in getting where we are now. There have been polls with the community, there has been a vote amongst the OSMF membership, etc. All point to a (large) majority accepting the new CT / license etc. You may not like the outcome, like you may not like your current government. But it's a fair and democratic process. The CT is not going away. It's now up to you whether you accept the CT or not. If not, I'll advise you to select another hobby. I invite you to accept the CT. Then we can all work on making OSM the most acurate and detailed map which is also openly and freely available; so extraodinary and amazing new things can be created for all to use. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Op 10-08-11 12:33, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schreef: To all It's all a matter of trust. A) Trusting contributors and b) trusting the users of OSM data. The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody, and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty, by creating licenses and contributor terms. Have you actually *read* the CT? Trust nobody? The OSMF asks of its contributors that they only contribute stuf which they are allowed to. The OSMF promises that the collective will always be published with a free and open license. Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you agree every time you use one of its services. It will probably take a long time for those seeking this way that it is a way without issue. First because legal certainty does not exist in a society where justice is dominated by (financial) power. ( see Dominique Strauss Kahn case for a recent example ) What has this to do with OSM? Second because the legal certainty created by the CT is uncertain because it is badly written, and one needs not be a specialist to understand that; and the use of OdBl is so unprecedented that we are completely unclear if it will hold in ANY case but the simplest. Do you claim that CC-BY-SA does not need a specialist to understand it? Third because we don't not have the financial means to maintain the license in even the smallest case. Like mentioned before, we're not maintaining the license. ODbL is maintained by Open Data Commons, whereas the CC is maintained by Creative Commons. Not the OSMF. OSMF will probably go bankrupt on the first case against an fraudulent user of the data. Are you suggesting that with sticking with CC-BY-SA we don't have such a problem? (if we have it at all) You ever read the story of the emperor's new clothes ? (=read CT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes I know the story. However, another story comes to mind with me. Ever read the parable of the ten virgins? It's about being prepared for what's coming. The OSMF is taking actions needed to keep the project running for years to come. Gert Henk Oh, wait a minute... In a previous message you made it perfectly clear you don't trust me Why am I even replying ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Collective database
Hi Kirill, If you want to clarify as deep as possible you might also want to check with OpenDataCommons (ODC), the authors of the license. Their mailinglist can be found here: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss cheers, Henk Op 06-06-11 13:46, Kirill Bestoujev schreef: Frederik, thanks for the reply. Do we have somewhere a more detailed description of collective database relating to OSM situation? May be some lawyers opinion or something else? Previously we were looking at the situation in a different way and suddenly understood that our positions is not very clear, so we would like to clarify the situation as deep as possible. Kirill On 06.06.2011 15:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 06/06/11 12:56, Kirill Bestoujev wrote: The resulting map (a single file) contains data from both sources. Can this resulting map (which is a database by its inside structure) treated as a collective database? I believe so. In my opinion, a derived database would result if you were to mix other data with OSM data in a way that actually looks at the OSM data - for example, if you have an OSM database of streets, and then add to that streets from another dataset but only where OSM had nothing. That would be a derived database. But if you have two datasets that live side-by-side in the same physical database, I would say that is a collective database. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Review of Articles of Association - Request for legal counsel
Hi all, The OSMF Strategy Working Group has been tasked with looking at the Articles of Association[1], which is the legal document that governs OSMF. The current list of issues that we are looking at is documented on the wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/Articles_of_Association_Review If you would like to participate in the discussion, you're welcome to join our weekly meetings on IRC every Monday. We're now specificly looking for a lawyer how can help us with drafting a revised version of the AoA. So, if you are a lawyer with knowledge of English law, the Companies Act and writing AoA, let us know. Or, if you know someone that is, let us know as well. Cheers Henk [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
Anthony schreef: You grant everyone the right to do anything. You're effectively releasing your content into the public domain. And since OSMF are using a broad non-exclusive licence on the database, and you are arguign that for an individual to do this effectively gives up their rights altogether, surely OSMF are effectively giving up *their* rights on the database altogether? No, the ODbL is much more restrictive than a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other The concept of the ODbL is that there is a distinction between data and database (the collection of data). Consider this as a box with stuff. The OSMF is the owner of the database (box) but not the contents. The OSMF is publishing the box with its contents under the ODbL. It can only do that if the owners of the stuff that's put into the box has given OSMF the right to distribute their stuff freely. Since ODbL is an open and free license, the OSMF needs to be sure that the data that is put into the database is also free. To make the legally sure, the text you quote has been drafted by legal experts. But you as contributor will still be the sole owner of the data you've contributed. Which licence, and what are the advantages to suing in a personal capacity rather than having OSMF do so? Any license. And the advantage is that who you want to sue might be different from who the OSMF wants to sue. For example, let's say you want to sue Cloudmade... ... or you want to sue GeoFabrik or ITO or AND (to name some other sponsors of OpenStreetMap) ... If there is a need to sue, we (the Foundation) will sue. Otherwise it will work as a precedence towards other parties. Cheers, Henk Hoff ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
Matt Amos schreef: On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:10 AM, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Henk Hoff o...@toffehoff.nl wrote: So if you have a Produced Work based on: - the database: no need for reverse engineering since the database is freely available The database is not freely available. It is only available under OdbL. i think Henk meant openly available. I did. The incentive to reverse engineer a produced work would be to create map data that isn't constrained by the OdbL. This modification would allow that to happen. This is unsatisfactory. 406! i don't think this modification would allow that to happen. i think the point Henk was trying to make is that the desire to reverse-engineer might be reduced by the availability of an ODbL derived database for every public produced work. people will still try to remove the ODbL from the data for $REASON, but (in my opinion) the license can stand without the reverse-engineering clause. +1 cheers, matt Henk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
Peter Millar schreef: - Original Message - From: Henk Hoff o...@toffehoff.nl To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2009 01:54:07 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works The LWG has mentioned this issue with ODC. There will be an RC2 of the ODbL in which this problem is solved. The change will be: 1. Add something on produced work/derivative db question along lines of: Any derivative Database used in the creation of a Publicly Available Produced Work should be considered itself as Publicly Available and therefore subject to Section 4.4. (where Section 4.4 is the Share Alike clause) 2. Remove the reverse engineering clause. With these two changes the focus of the SA-clause (within the ODbL) is on the data and not the produced work as a whole. It's basicly saying: we don't care what license you use for your Produced Work, as long as the derivative database that you used to create the Produced Work is publicly available under the ODbL license (or a by OSMF determined compatible one). Since the data itself will have ODbL, we don't need the reverse engineering clause anymore on any produced work. This also protects any copyright data that is used with a collective (!) database (since there is no reverse engineering applicable). We (the LWG) think this is an adequate solution to the problem of having Produced Work released under another license. Cheers, Henk Hoff I'm not sure I follow this. Is it proposed that the reverse engineering clause is removed altogether or just in the context of a Produced Work with a share-alike licence? Peter It is proposed to removed the clause 4.7 altogether, because it suits no purpose with the addition of derivative databases being public when the produced work is also public. Why bother to do all the reverse engineering when the data with which the produced work is made is already freely available? In the RC1 this was not the case. So if you have a Produced Work based on: - the database: no need for reverse engineering since the database is freely available - a derivative database: no need for reverse engineering since derivative database is freely available (= new addition) - a collective database: the reverse engineering clause was not applicable on the whole collective database, only the (derivative) database part. If the produced work is a database (or acts like it) than that's just another derivative database in terms of ODbL. Cheers, Henk Hoff ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
