Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
At 08:36 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to do with the end user license: 4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. This would only be useful if there is a chain to follow it back to OSM, this is specific to OS/Nearmap type situations, they don't require explicit attributions with map tiles, but they do require attribution can be found, and while OSM offers to attribute on their website, downstream may not be subject to the same requirements which is where clause 3 breaks or contradicts clause 4. Thanks, now I understand. You are entirely correct that there is no perpetual guarantee of a chain to follow back to OSM (and thence to a third party). Clause 4 only provides what I call level 1 attribution as described below. It can survive and is practical and courteous to implement even if the distribution license, (i.e. a successor to ODbL), eventually went completely PD, which is why there is no contradiction or breakage by clause 3. In the case of the UK OS, there is a switch from a potential requirement for level 4 attribution to a clear requirement for level 1, so the Open Government Licence is definitely good news for handling highly granular data. In the case of Nearmap, it is my understanding, Ben might like to comment or contradict, that level 1 is livable with. The real concern being the possible that future OSM generations might want to drop share-alike. In the case of CC-BY, there is some opinion that level 4 is a clear requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes data under this license, I have therefore written to the Australian Attorney General's Office requesting explicit permission to use attribution level 1 and 2 with level 3 on a best effort basis. Mike Third-Party Attribution Levels Level 1: OSM(F) acknowledges third party sources on its website or however technology/social trends change in the future. There is no attempt to get end users of OSM data to do the same. This is what CT clause 4 does, and only this. Level 2: When any OSM data is published, i.e. copied from an OSM(F) website via a planet dump or API, XAPI call, there is something physically present in the material transferred that acknowledges third parties. It is LWG policy to implement this. That something might be a complete list of third party sources used any where by OSM plus their preferred attribution language. Or it might be a link back to the level 1 attribution statement. At the current level of network bandwidth, the first is impractical for API calls for single nodes. The LWG is therefore adopting the link mechanism initially and this work is almost complete. When working and provenly practical, the LWG will be happy to make a minor CT update adding it to clause 4. Note also that encouraging tagging with a source tag is also useful in this regard, however it is only a best effort as not all contributors will and source tags may get change or get deleted over time. Level 3: End-users re-distributing a copy of the OSM database or a derivative database are required to maintain any third-party attribution information intact. Messy in the case of very small extracts and in source tags, but not impossible. However, I would not like to force future generations of OSMers to require this in perpetuity, (in reality about 135 years given the current age of many contributors). Consistent source tagging, and appending to source tags rather changing them, helps this on a best-effort but not guarenteed basis. Level 4: End-users have to acknowledge third-parties in maps they make. I am vehemently opposed to this for any form of highly granular data. Even if individual contributors are excluded, requiring a list of several hundred sources is not practical and will become worse when OSM data itself is just one of several sources used to make a map. Regretfully, imported CC-BY's at least as prominent for each source exacerbates this situation. For a longer but outdated discussion see 5. A look at third party Attribution, LWG minutes 12th Oct 2010: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgchttp://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc ___ 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
At 08:28 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: On 7 January 2011 05:14, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: I almost wish that Tobias Knerr's words earlier in this thread were my own: The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between my data, your data and their data. As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective, not individual, decisions. And I wish the indecisiveness built into the CTs didn't exist and the project had a clear outlook on where it was going, because at present even if the CT/ODBL is accepted it looks like some will push for further license changes to PD. If OSM is going to PD, fine, but please make this decision clear and communicate it well, if it's going to stay share a like, fine, but at present it's neither and this will continue to be a thorn. I naturally would prefer the term flexibility rather than indecisiveness :-) and that it is a highly strategic feature not a bug. I hope you will stay contributing and be a party to future collective decisions whether or not we personally agree. OSM is a very, very long life project about free and open geodata. Share-alike and PD are tools just as Ruby-on-Rails is. Flexibility on those tools is important for three reasons. - The first is short-term, internal to OSM and political. There are broadly two main groups of contributors, share-alike and PD proponents. Each side claims to be in the majority so the reality is that both sides are roughly even and neither can claim moral ascendency. My goal is consensus between those two groups: we stay share-alike, we pioneer a coherent share-alike license for highly factual data and we explore how it can work in the real world. If it works well, the 2/3 majority required to make a change effectively locks in share-alike. Otherwise, the PD proponents who reluctantly go along can try and persuade us why a PD-like license can best serve the open data movement, and they have a rational, democratic mechanism to do so. If enthusiastic supporters of either side are unhappy, then I have done my job well :-) - OpenStreetMap is THE pioneer in creating and licensing open highly granular, high factual data. It took over 10 years for the choices for licensing open software to become obvious and reasonably mature. We are only 6 years in and still discussing our opening move. -The flexibility is ultimately for the long, long term. A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years time, just as I can still navigate using a local 1891 OS map. We are on the extreme end as to the potential life of our project. Software, even operating systems, come and go and get re-written with fresh perspectives. If, as happens, they die because the licensing regimen did not anticipate the future, it is not such a big deal. For us, it is. Share-alike is a tool to progressing the goal of Open IP, not an end in itself. May be it will have outlived its utility in 10, 50 or 100 years, may be it won't. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
At 02:20 PM 7/01/2011, John Smith wrote: On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others, published data under the same/similar license. Thanks, I'll follow up with finding an appropriate office to write to in New Zealand unless anyone from there can help. The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand. The last figures I compiled for OSM data imports are: CC-BY: 10 (Australia 9 (possibly + 2?), New Zealand 1) CC-BY-SA: 13 (Poland 1, Germany 5*, Czech Republic 1, Wikipedia 1, France 1, Sweden 1, The Netherlands 2, UK 1, Australia 1 [Nearmap]) * The German figure is apparently mostly or all due to data being specially licensed to OSM as CC-BY-SA by request. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for governmental organisations] and I have updated IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating what will happen if the license changes in future. Clause 4 is part of the Contributor Terms. That is the point. It survives any license changes in the future. Mike ___ 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
At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Mike Collinson wrote: given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer ODbL-ready, sickly sadly all too possible. That's vandalism, of course. Could you share their user ID? Richard, I'll let sleeping dogs lie for the while as said user has normally conducted themselves with personal courtesy to all. I hold my breath that I have got entirely the wrong end of the stick and an August mass deletion of abutters tags, carefully ground recorded and entered when such things showed on the map, is meant to be replaced with imagery landuse digitisation :-) cheers Richard (Rather coincidentally, this was published today: http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ ) What a beautifully apt cartoon! I almost wish that Tobias Knerr's words earlier in this thread were my own: The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between my data, your data and their data. As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective, not individual, decisions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to do with the end user license: 4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. Mike At 04:42 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: Which clause 3 contradicts On 1/7/11, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for governmental organisations] and I have updated IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating what will happen if the license changes in future. Clause 4 is part of the Contributor Terms. That is the point. It survives any license changes in the future. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Sent from my mobile device ___ 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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like to run it by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap and similar situations. Here is the CT version that we are looking at formally releasing: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU I am checking through it for any missed drafting snafus and would like to get in one further informal opinion, but hope to make a formal release very soon. Mike At 03:25 PM 5/01/2011, Francis Davey wrote: To answer Robert's question. In my view clause 2 needs - and I hope that it will include in its final version - a limitation that you only grant a licence in respect of any rights that you have. The aim (I believe) is this: * the contributor licenses very broadly OSMF to permit them to use any rights (in copyright or database right) that the contributor has in the data contributed * whether or not the contributor has any intellectual property rights in the data contributed, they are asked not to contribute data if that contribution would infringe someone else's IP rights, but they are expressly told they don't have to guarantee that is the case (because the contributor won't in general be a lawyer) * OSMF promises to use data in a restricted set of ways (as set out in clause 3 and 4). In order for this to work as planned, clause 2 needs some words of limitation eg and to the extent that you are able to do so. I realise I owe a response to a much earlier question about whether and to what extent contributing data that is later used in breach of an IP right might impact on the contributor (short answer: I doubt there's any risk). I'm just rather busy right now. Sorry. -- Francis Davey ___ 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] New phrase in section 2
And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbhttp://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb and currently released 1.0 text http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs. Mike At 07:39 PM 5/12/2010, Mike Collinson wrote: Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Regarding future Contributor Terms upgrades
The License Working Group had a request from a contributor to make a statement to the effect that users who sign up to v1.0 of the Contributor Terms will be allowed to upgrade to future versions. I am now happy to provide such a formal statement: All the rights granted in the new proposed version are already granted in 1.0 so it is not essential to explicitly upgrade. However, the License Working Group clarifies that any contributor who has signed up to Contributor Terms 1.0 will be given the opportunity to voluntarily upgrade to the next revision and will be provided a mechanism to do so. The LWG also believes that this should be a general principle for any future revision. Mike Chair LWG At 02:27 PM 15/11/2010, David Ellams wrote: Dear LWG I am writing to request that the LWG make a statement to the effect that users who sign up to v1.0 of the Contributor Terms will be allowed to upgrade to future versions. I have not yet accepted the Contributor Terms, although I am supportive of the aims of the licence change process. Previously, the main obstacle has been that I may wish to trace (or possibly even import) from some of the OS Opendata resources in the future. I am heartened to see the efforts being made to address any incompatibility between the CTs and OS Opendata. Although I have never yet made substantial use of OS Opendata, I have been holding off from accepting the CTs in fear that if I accept now I may not be able to upgrade to any possible future version which may address the incompatibilities (thus leaving me unable to make use of OS Opendata even if the new CTs are compatible). I have heard reference to that possibility in a couple of mailing list discussions, but I would be very grateful if the LWG could more formally express its intention to allow users who accept the current CTs to upgrade to any future CTs in a manner that supersedes the current CTs. I for one, will accept the CTs without hesitation once such a statement has been made (even though I accept that there is no guarantee that compatibility will be achieved in future versions of the CTs or even that there will be any future versions). Finally, let me express my sincere thanks for your tremendous efforts in addressing the issues raised by the community in relation to the licence change. Keep up the good work! Best wishes David Ellams (user:davespod) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] We Are Changing The License missing relevant information
At 08:42 PM 25/10/2010, Mâ¡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/25 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com: On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: I just answered a user's question on how to accept the new contributor terms. I'll quote his statement here: ''How do we accept the new licence??'' JOSM sent me here but I cannot find a way to accept the licence. Users may accept the license from their API user account on the settings page. or use this link http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms It would be nice to have this link on this page: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License as suggested by Tobias. cheers, Martin Done by Richard. Thanks for the feedback. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] The ball starts rolling ... Paris City Council to use ODbL
Paris City Council will publish 20 data sets before the end of this year under ODbL 1.0. Members of our own French community and chapitre Creative Commons France [1] (!!) have had involvement in this process. Congratulations to Paris and to them. http://www.regardsurlenumerique.fr/blog/2010/9/28/opendata-a-paris_nous-publierons-une-vingtaine-de-jeux-de-donnees-avant-la-fin-2010_/ For a readable English translation, this link may work for you: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=frtl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regardsurlenumerique.fr%2Fblog%2F2010%2F9%2F28%2Fopendata-a-paris_nous-publierons-une-vingtaine-de-jeux-de-donnees-avant-la-fin-2010_%2F Mike Would that we could do the same. [1] http://fr.creativecommons.org/institution.htm ___ 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
To come back on topic, I don't think this has made legal-talk yet. Thanks to Jordan Hatcher, whose mail I am re-working: The new UK Open Government Licence is now out: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm http://www.jordanhatcher.com/2010/uk-open-government-licence-now-out/ It's essentially an attribution only license, so inter-operable with lots of other licenses. They've explicitly noted interoperability with the Open Data Commons Attribution License: These terms have been aligned to be inter-operable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights. Two immediate things to note. I am not sure whether the any extends to Open Data Commons Attribution License. The Open Data Commons Attribution License per se is the attribution-only version of ODbL and distinct from it. I also at the moment have no idea whether the OS will / will have to move to this license or when. That said, in my first read I am very encouraged by the new attribution clause which seems far more practical in application than the previous one: acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence; I would speculate that clause 4 of the new CTs covers us. [Which will make me happy as I specifically designed it for governmental organisations] 4. At Your or the copyright holders option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. That being said, I'll be pushing for planet dumps and [X]API responses to include an XML element pointing to the same Attribution link to better discharge our distribution responsibilities. I look forward to any other comments. Anyone see any gotchas? Mike LWG ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licansing and CT 1.1
At 09:03 AM 5/10/2010, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Ed Avis e...@... writes: Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to accept future contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change. Insurance companies would love this idea :) However, I consider that by accepting Contributor Terms the mapper makes a binding contract with OSMF and that can be changed only if both OSMF and mapper accept it. License can be changed later because that possibility is written in CT but not CTs. Now we have perhaps 20 or 30 thousand contracts with CT 1.0 but apparently in the future contibutors will be asked to accept CT 1.1. What is the plan with those CT 1.0 mappers? Will they just continue to contribute under CT 1.0 or will they be asked to accept CT 1.1 before they can continue? For me the changes between 1.0 and 1.1 look negligible but perhaps having both CT 1.0 and CT 1.1 users could make things even more garbled. At the moment I do not see any need to force CT1.0 contributors to accept a CT1.1, they can just continue under 1.0. However, any user should have the voluntary option to do so if they wish. I completely agree with your first paragraph point. It is extremely important for contributors to lock in the OSMF. This is the anti-hijack mechanism. Even if a future OSMF were able to get new contributors to accept some different kind of terms, the OSMF would still be obligated to a large mass of existing contributors, who would control the bulk of the data, to release only under a free and open license. Mike LWG ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review
The License Working Group met Tuesday. Most, if not all, comment at the moment is on the Contributor Terms. Therefore we will devote next week's meeting (Aug 31) entirely to going though each issue already raised. We will then pass these on to legal counsel for review. When we get a response, we will then look whether they can best be dealt with by clarificatory statements or clarificatory changes to the Terms themselves. We are not at this point looking to making any major changes to the way the Contributor Terms, but of course cannot completely rule that out. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
Liz, You asked about the early intent of the Contributor Terms before they were re-written by legal counsel. As promised: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
At 10:46 AM 14/08/2010, Rob Myers wrote: On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote: If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary. The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find out which dataset was used to produce it, and from a given dataset you can find out who produced it. BY-SA already requires less attribution than the GNU FDL, and this was an issue for some people when Wikipedia was relicenced - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Attribution - Rob. And section 4 of the Contributor Terms is designed for first-stage attribution of data donors irrespective of license used. Thanks Rob for the article. I was struck by the moderate importance attached in the survey result to the wiki(pedia) history page. It has bothered me that though attribution is a good abstract idea , we lacked a similar mechanism in a database of highly factual non-immutable data to make it sticky. It strikes me that the work by Matt now gives a practical analogue of that in the history planet dump that has now been published. Speculatively, it is perhaps something we should commit to continue publishing as part of our attribution commitments. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT?
At 05:50 PM 22/08/2010, David Groom wrote: Intent: (1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms without need for derogation. (2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices. The license used in section 3 might vary over the next 100 years due to the freedoms in Section 2 but Section 4 remains immutable. We attribute our sources but not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so. If you say not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so isn't that a breach CC-BY terms which, Under 8b, requires Licensor offers to the recipient a licence to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the licence granted to You under this Licence [2 below]. Surely if we use CC-BY data, we have for require (force) users down the line to attibute it to the origional authors. David Yes, that really is the rub, isn't it? I do not see much of an issue with sideways attributions where a derivative geodata database has been from OSM as the main source. The Deriver copies http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution and uses it appropriately. Things become difficult when geodata sources really open up and OSM is a major but amongst thousands of geospatial resources and folks will be routinely creating multiple mixed derived databases and them mixing them too. Governments move on to more realistic licensing but we can't. Oops. But I may be being pessimistic. Then there is upwards attribution. Software generally does not demand that a book attribute the word-processor used, the various image packages used to make the picture, how field notes were made ... CC-BY is vague on this as, like CC BY SA, it is not written for databases. Are we really going to have to force any map-maker to acknowledge hundreds of sources because they just might be adding to a particular area?? We seem to be dealing with all this at the moment by simply ignoring it. Mike PS http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution only attributes Australian Bureau of Statistics as an Australian source. I've counted at least 6 CC-BY licenses in the import catalogue. :-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.netrevi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT permission to do so. David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the Contributor Terms. If you have added content that is licensed under CC-BY-SA you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms. I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is compatible with OBdL and CT. It is not. I have moved this from [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle for releasing government data. I am inclined to agree with 80n, though in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too potentially broad in their virality. I present this for the purposes of discussion and do not see my conclusions as immutable. I focus on Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a consideration. I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last of NearMap of Australia (http://www.nearmap.com). They allow use of their PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most cordial and helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from their own perspective. I hope they will share some of the conclusions they reach, both for the perspective and the authoritative opinion. -- To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this: Write a word processor --X-- Write a book with the software. Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book. But if the software is improved to write the book and software is published, then software improvements must be available Share Alike. ODbL is slightly stronger: Create map data --X-- Make a map Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible data to make the map under certain conditions. But if the data is improved and the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be available Share Alike. But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus can potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original publisher feels they want to exert(?). Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community: Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA - Create map data with some imagery tracing - Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map; ... ODbL breaks the chain at the second -, either because the extract is not substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA does not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?). Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you believe strongly in pandemic virality, then it is a good thing. If you believe that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect ourselves. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
At 12:02 PM 11/08/2010, David Groom wrote: 2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have **explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence below?' The general answer is that PD licenses, and specifically the terms under which US government releases data, allow any use. That gives you explicit permission to submit the data. Not in my opinion it doesn't. In my opinion it gives you **permission**, or it gives you **implicit** permission, but it does not give you **explicit** permission I raised this point on this list on 20 July 2010 and got no answer, so last week I emailed the Licence Working Group to raise this point with them. David David, Sorry if I have not answered you, it must have been someone else with the same question. Please would someone else from the License Working Group verify my memory as it is an important point: We made the same question as you to our legal counsel when we reviewed his initial draft and asked if we could change/remove it, particularly as, like you, we felt it confusing. Our understanding was that it would be a very bad idea. The realm of implicit permission being unclear and falling into the realm of Well, you did not say I couldn't kill you. As I recall, the rationale is: If a license allows anyone any use, that is explicit permission -- Anyone is a set including You -- You have explicit permission. I also have to draft a question on OS StreetView to our legal counsel, and will be happy to include this for double verification. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM content on locked platforms
Interesting, the CC BY SA quote does rather suggest that such an application is not CC BY SA compliant. Two linked observations almost lead me to believe that the closed nature of a platform is irrelevant, what is important is the effort made by the individual developer to keep data/images free and open: 1) Is it not the closed nature of the application rather than the operating system? For example, If there was a button such as email me the current map tile, that would still be Apple conformant (I expect) as the application is still locked to the phone and CC-BY-SA conformant as the map is copiable. 2) If the London A-Z is published as a good old book, no mechanism is provided for exchanging the work with others. They don't give you a photo copier. So the acid test would be whether there is a deliberate attempt to block access to the copying the map (rather than the application) at a reasonable but not necessarily identical level of quality ? Another reason to change to ODbL? :-)Here the A-Z map would most likely be a Produced Work which can be under any type of license. The application developer would be obligated to make the underlying data available, via an open download that does not require an an iPhone. The one area that is still up for community guideline development is to what extent the in-memory transformation process he used should also be made available. Mike At 12:36 AM 3/04/2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, a recent discussion on talk-de has unearthed an interesting question with regards to iPhone/Appstore and other locked platforms. You will have to correct me if I'm wrong about the technical aspects of the Apple product range, since I am firmly on the Cory Doctorow side when it comes to iSomethings. But as I understand it, the iPhone is a platform that does not allow you to easily exchange software or data between devices. You can send someone an email to his iPhone but you cannot send them an application to install, and you cannot even send them, say, a new dictionary for the word processor software unless that word processor software explicitly has a feature that provides for such exchange. Now let's assume someone publishes, for a price, an application called the London A-Z for the iPhone, which is basically a map viewer with a data component, all data being derived from OSM and stored in the application. Now, CC-BY-SA requires that whoever buys this application should have the full right to make derivative works (of the data), pass it (the data) on, etc.etc., and indeed it also says: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. If I understand things correctly, then the whole iPhone/Appstore/Apple operating system combo is just that - a technological measure that controls access and use of the work, because you cannot retrieve the work from the iPhone without jailbreaking it, and you cannot install it on another iPhone without jailbreaking that. I would be interested in your thoughts on the legal situation here. Is distributing an OSM-derived data set on such a closed platform still CC-BY-SA conformant? Could I, if I were selling such an app, just say: Here's the package on my web site for download - of course to install it on the iPhone you must go through the Appstore and pay $9.99 but if you jailbreak your phone then you can use the free version from my web page. Of course by jailbreaking it you violate Apple's license conditions... - I mean it's not the software provider's fault that only DRM'ed software goes on the iPhone. Or is it? This also leads to interesting follow-on questions, namely (a) what would the ODbL say in a similar case? (b) is it in our interest - in the interest of open data - to allow such distribution of our data through closed platforms? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Import of Korea from Yahoo
Jonas, Getting in touch with the user courteously is certainly the best start. Andrew Errington, CC'd, hosts talk-ko and may also be able to help. If first steps do not resolve, the OSMF Foundation's Data Working Group [1] can provide help. Most or all are members of this list anyway. Mike [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups d...@osmfoundation.org At 08:55 PM 23/02/2010, Jonas Stein wrote: On 2010-02-19, Jonas Stein n...@jonasstein.de wrote: I just found a really large import: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/52816 It seems to be data from Yahoo (?) Can someone verify, that the data is imported legally? I could not find any information about that kind of gift from yahoo. kind regards, I ve sent also a mail in english to the user who imported Korea, but did not get an reply yet. How should we deal with it? -- Jonas Stein n...@jonasstein.de ___ 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] Translations of Contributor Terms
When the new Contributor Terms are really complete (not yet) we will need Italian and French translations pretty fast in accordance with the laws of those countries for the original version to be in native language. We have a couple of avenues that may help us with that but nothing finalised yet, if you can help or know someone who can please contact Henk Hoff, CC'd. We do have fund available but would obviously prefer pro bono! As these will be legally binding, a lawyer or law firm translation service is needed. In addition, it will be helpful, but not a necessity, to have informal versions in other languages. Help also appreciated. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms draft changes
We are wanting to introduce dual-licensing for *new* registrants as soon as we have the new Contributor Terms nailed down. That means a final review of the current wording by legal counsel and then I'll ask for any last(?) comments from this list. We've made some changes in order to try and address concerns raised late last year from OSM and OSMF members. Here is a version with recent changes highlighted in yellow: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhrhttp://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr Here is a summary of what we have done and why: 1) License violations - 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. Board suggested that we deal with this via Community Guidelines ... for example, asking contributors to be courteous; setting up how and when the OSMF would expected to act; name and shame where possible; etc. We have therefore made no addition to the Contributor Terms, it is already long. 2) Third-party ODbL to ODbL conflict with the need to be able to potentially change the license over the coming years. I, for one, feel very strongly that we must have a mechanism to allow the OSM of the future to have the best free and open license they need, as long as it remains with the free and open boundary, however defined. I recognise that this causes some incompatibility with importing other ODbL data. Our solution is : a) Reduce the risk that some folks perceive of license change by increasing the amount of active contributors needed to change the license from 50% to 2/3; b) Not make any major change to the Contributor Terms now but handle ODbL-based third-party data imports on a case by case basis; c) reconsider in one year; d) Restrict the grant of license in the second paragraph to just the OSMF, (i.e. not the end users). Re-introduce the Database Contents License (DbCL) http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ to govern the relation between OSMF and end users. We had wanted to incorporate this in the Contributor Terms for simplicity, but it actually complicates things. You will see that a lot of the wording is the same. 3) and a tiny plain language change to make it more obvious that an active contributor is a person not a bot by using the word who. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
At 03:57 PM 26/06/2009, Peter Miller wrote: My concern here is to try to avoid creating an interesting target for 'carpet baggers' who may wish to 'privatise' OSM in the way that the mutual building societies were privatised in the past ten years in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_baggers#United_Kingdom I suggest that we need to infuse all the legal arrangements with efforts to: 1) Avoid the OSMF being valuable as a 'take over' target with a potential financial value on the open market. Both the articles and the terms and conditions should help with this. 2) To protect the OSMF from hostile actions by excluding opportunities of financial reward to any parties (members, directors or contributors). Both the terms and conditions and articles should help with this. Peter, We think we have come up with up with a very robust and elegant way of dealing with this by binding the Foundation when individual contributors make their contributions, see item 3 of:. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms#OpenStreetMap_Contributor_Terms (this text has just gone up on the wiki and there will be a general announcement about it to this list). This should be stronger than amending the Foundation's articles as the articles themselves are can be changed in an adverse takeover. It does not preclude tightening the articles and I personally feel we should. For propriety, we feel that the make-up of the Articles Working Group should be different from the License group. Comments welcome and appreciated. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM data grant
At 06:00 PM 18/06/2009, Russ Nelson wrote: On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Russ Nelson wrote: Yes, but your result has to be licensed under the CC-By-SA, which means that in principle, somebody could republish your composition. In practice, nobody has complained about that. Or rather, in practice, people simply haven't made the maps precisely because of this. Yeah, I gotta admit that I'm wishing that we could protect the database as a database of geodata, whilst simultaneously allowing people to make derivative works that AREN'T a database of geodata, whilst also avoiding the TIGER trap of proprietary database improvements. Not sure that copyright allows for such fine control. The ODbL tries to do exactly this by defining the concept of a Produced Work that meets allowing people to make derivative works that AREN'T a database of geodata and has no restriction on the license used provided the data source is acknowledged. Sharing Richard's sentiments and wanting to keep a united community, I personally think this is one of the best thing that has come out of the ODbL process. Of course separating one from the other is not easy, so we would like to evolve a simple guideline: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL 1.0 timetable
The Open Data Commons have announced their release schedule as follows. Wed 29th Apr (next wed): public release of 1.0 RC (Release Candidate) Wed 6th May (following wed): comments period on 1.0 RC close Wed 13th May (following wed): 1.0 Released Both releases should appear at: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ The intent of the 1.0 release candidate is not for suggestions for major new alterations but for people to check on changes they have made and spot any glaring errors. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
I've tried to capture all the comments made with some strawman wording below. Please feel free to cast arrows at it. I've also copied it to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#What_constitutes_a_Substantial_extract I am not happy that I have captured 2 properly. I am trying to build on Russ' comments and build a case that a systematic extraction of a single criteria is Substantial in a qualitative sense (even if a minute quantity of the entire database). The overall rationale for the wording is a) it is safer to define non-Substantial than Substantial; b) to encourage as much as possible the worry-free use of our data for personal projects, local community and local educational projects, for commercial projects where our data is either a very small adjunct to the main thrust of the product/service or where the commerciality is clearly cottage-industry, for example village map OK, town map not OK; c) build a case for the qualitative interpretation of Substantial (http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf, p28) Mike We regard the following as being not Substantial within the meaning of our license provided that the extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a similar project: 1. 100 features. In OpenStreetMap parlance, a feature can be a way, such as part a road with the same characteristics, or an independent node, (Point Of Interest), such as an eating place. 2. You can go over the 100 feature limit, provided that the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria. For example, we would regard the extraction and use of all eating places or all castles in an area as Substantial. But if you extract the locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non Substantial. 3. A single systematic extraction and re-use of an entire area of up to 1,000 inhabitants . The area can be a small densely populated area,(for example, a European village but not a town), or a large sparsely-populated area, (for example, Australian bush). If your extraction of data does not fall within the above guidelines, then we would expect it to be Substantial and therefore you should comply with the provisions of our license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
At 00:34 24/04/2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: SteveC wrote: Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial' means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. It hasn't been discussed a lot. I guess you have read the often-referred-to pp28-32 of http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf which of course are not specific to OSM. Thank you, I was looking for that. As Frederick says, it is very well worth reading. An interesting point for us is that Substantial can be both quantitative or qualititative in nature. Can we do with anything with a qualititative description where we avoid numbers altogether?. I assume that for most of us, the common sense cut-off is really about commercial value? Something like this? (this is a real question not a statement) :- Not Substantial: 1. An area too limited to be of commercial value. Something usually applicable to a personal or local community project: My house, my street, our part of town or a complete but small village. 2. A non-systematic, ad hoc extraction of data tagged with a specific tag or tags, even if over a wide or even global area. For example, some historic= Points of Interest in an area used as reference or adjunct of a commercial, educational or scientific project: Yes. All historic POIs in a defined area: No. Substantial 1. An extraction large enough or systematic enough to be of potential commercial value, even if mixed with other data. ... Looking back at the above, I wonder if the best thing to do would be define what we think of as Not Substantial and steer clear of Substantial except to say that if an extraction is not *clearly* part of our Not Substantial list then we as Licensor expect our License conditions to be applicable? Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL 1.0 status update
The License Working Group met tonight (I'll publish minutes to http://foundation.openstreetmap.org on Thursday) and Jordan Hatcher of Open Data Commons participated. We requested a firm and desirably soon date for ODbL 1.0 so that everyone can get a chance to look at it. Jordan has kindly committed to providing a date on or by this Saturday. I'll report to this list as soon as I get it. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updates to ODbL related Wiki pages and outstanding issues
Legal review of Use Case doco with original Use Case text is now available at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases or go straight to http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2008-02-28_legalreviewofosmlicenseusecases2.pdf http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Timeline can be deleted and the link redirected to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan, I see nothing that is not dated or duplicated. Sorry, I am not sure how to do this. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues versus Implementation_Issues. Some of are very general questions more related to the license itself than our implementation. I've added some comments that may help generate specific action items. Mike At 11:55 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote: I have been through the wiki pages that relate to the ODbL and updated them where I can. I have updated the name of the license to OdBL on all pages (I think). I have updated the links to the license itself to point to OpenDataCommons not OpenContentLawyer in all cases (I think). I have also done some more work on the Use Cases page to make the discussion points clearer. I have moved the legal council comments to be directly below the Use Case is all cases and in some cases have responded to questions. I have also moved the Wikimapia Use Case to the negative Use Case list from the positive list. There is another Use Case in the negative list relating to WIkipedia which I think belongs in the Positive Use Case list but am waiting for any comments on that one before moving it. Here are the list of pages I believe are be relevant to the ODbL license going forward. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence Work that still needs to be done... I don't have the knowledge to update the Time Line page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Timeline ). I encourage someone within the licensing team to update this page and reconcile it with the new 'Implementation Plan' page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan ). In what way are these pages serving different purposes? Should one be deleted and should any relevant content be transferred to the other? A new blank 'Implementation Issues' page as been created (and is referred to from the email announcement. Does this supersede the 'Open Issues' page and should the content be moved to is from that page or is it seen as being for something different? Could someone from the license team clarify. There are a number of important issues on the 'Open Issues' page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues ). I suggest we build on this list in the coming days as required. I have added an open question about 'who's feature is it' for license transfer purposes. Are we to get any comment from the legal council or the licensing team on any of these? Regards, Peter ___ 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] US local government data: negotiating license?
David, Unless I missed out, I don't think you got any replies to your message below? Let me stick my neck out and give a few hints on how to proceed. I am sure it could be improved and others might like to comment on suitability. A boilerplate has been suggested before and it would be good to evolve one. The usual caveats, IANAL and I've negotiated with business but not government departments. A good general method is to flip things around, explain what you are going to do with the data and ask them to contact you by, say, the end of the month if the use does NOT meet their terms of use. I.e. there is no work and explicit public decisions for them if everything is good. Send by letter, preferably registered, and keep a copy. Keep the letter as short as possible, the less the extraneous information, the less to query. If they do not reply by the end of the month (make sure it is a reasonable amount of time), they have effectively given you permission to proceed. If there is any later question, you refer them to the letter. Mike Dear , Further to my receipt of a digital file containing location data for a network of recreational trails and your kind telephone conversation of x, I am now writing to confirm the intended use of the data. As release of the data would be difficult to withdraw, I would be grateful if you would contact me before x if the intended use does not comply with any specific terms of use requirements that your department has. After , the trail data will be merged into a global public database called OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap is a non-commercial project to create and provide free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project's website main page http://www.openstreetmap.org shows how the data can be used to make free maps. Anyone can use the data for any purpose provided that they comply with attributing and sharing provisions - current information about which can be found here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_License. As a courtesy your own crediting information will be added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution . Yours, x At 08:42 PM 23/09/2008, David Carmean wrote: Have any of you persuaded a local (US) government to release data under a license compatible with OSM? I've been sent a shapefile for a network of recreational trails by a local government association (represents nine counties). I explained my plans on the telephone to the official who sent me the files, and she gave me crediting info, but she did not specify that the data must in fact be credited, nor did she specify any other terms of use in writing. Should I call their legal department? Or might there be a better way to guide them into giving us what we need? :) Thanks. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] US local government data: negotiating license?
At 06:06 PM 6/10/2008, Gervase Markham wrote: Mike Collinson wrote: A good general method is to flip things around, explain what you are going to do with the data and ask them to contact you by, say, the end of the month if the use does NOT meet their terms of use. I think that is both politically and legally extremely unwise. You can't write to Sony and say unless you contact me in the next month, I'm going to make your entire back catalogue available via BitTorrent. While a more extreme example, the same principle applies. Their lack of refusal cannot be taken as consent. To compare, there would have had to be a meeting where Sony appeared to be offering there their entire back catalogue, that there is a reasonable assumption that they would ordinarily allow it to be made available via BitTorrent (!) and that there your planned action is not likely to be particularly significant. US government data on the other hand is paid for by the people and generally available to the people for any purpose unless a third-party's IP rights are involved. I think the key questions would be a) does that also generally apply to US local government (I don't know) and b) that there has in fact been a conversation where the provider was verbally briefed on what OpenStreetMap does and did not object, so that letter is giving summary *as reasonably understood* - maybe one more telephone conversation might be in order. This is a very commonly used procedure to get things moving where the other party has no stake in expediting things - that being said, I certainly acknowledge that it is a little aggressive and may not be to the OSM community consensus taste but suggest it should be considered if we are to effectively mine existing resources. After , the trail data will be merged into a global public database called OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap is a non-commercial project No, it's not - or, at least, to claim this is to suggest that the data is only used non-commercially, which is definitely wrong. Well, it does not say that, it says that OpenStreetMap is a non-commercial project - it does not have commercial investors, motive and does not seek to make a profit from what is being offered - and the next line says that anyone can use the data for any purpose. To me, anyone, any purpose clearly implies commercial as well as non-commercial and does not need to be spelt out - but, as I said, I think being a little aggressive is good, so I guess there is no harm done in so doing. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
