Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown
On 12 December 2011 13:58, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided not to change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector. Some ways have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up to seven versions by me. That's enough to keep them and if you want to delete MY edits even though I have agreed to the CT, you may do that, but remapping them would ignore my editing history. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the moral and legal right to decide what may be kept or not, not the right of a single-node mapper who draw two ways in 2007. There is only one correct location for an intersection and if another maspper has already occupied this location with his node, there is no sensible reason to recreate it on the same location. There is no copyright on single nodes, there is no copyright on moved nodes and there is no copyright on street names that have already passed the comparison with municipal government's street list. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the predominant copyright on this map and not the less-than-1% one-node contributors. I have to agree with the above sentiment. The first 'red' node I have checked in my home town (a road junction http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/9893306/history) was created by an anonymous contributor in Jun 2006 and has subsequently been touched an impressive 82 further times by myself and others who have accepted the terms! Is that not sufficient to consider the old IPR as having been replaced? I suggest that nodes create anonymously and extensively edited by license accepting contributors should be deemed to be 'orange', not red. Regards, Peter Some of the marked edits are mechanical work requiring neither local knowledge nor genius: correcting spelling mistakes (e.g. Grade2grade2), debugging keepright fixmes, deleting created_by, etc. There should be a functionality to mark their nodes and ways as checked, verified and absolutely insignificant concerning copyright. There is absolutely no case in history where a one-node mapper, even an anonymous one-node mapper, was able to claim a copyright based on his less-than-1% contribution. If you want to delete or vandalize the whole map just for pleasing a non-responding anonymous single-node contributor while destroying the work of a 150,000-node contributor, you may do that. I am not going to replace any of the vandalized nodes. As they are often located on important trunk roads, sometimes even on intersections, their removal might prevent efficient routing for many years. Maybe the license change is just a sociological experiment (like the Milgram experiment) to check how stupid people are if they are told to remap existing nodes. Cheers! -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ 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] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote: So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not available on an open license even if the context of the two images is completely different? The context of the two images is the single derivative image. I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very unhelpful view for the project to take. For the avoidance of doubt the base map is a direct clone of standard osm map rendering so is already available for reuse. It is only the combined image that is not. The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the two works a derivative of both. See above! Please refer to the specific examples I have posed above to help direct the discussion. These include a map of the USA overlaid with crime statistics, a directions map overlaid with a photograph and a map of the Isle of White overlaid with some illustrations. They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single image) and are therefore all derivative works. As you will guess by I disagree with this statement as well! Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works would be distributed/publicly exhibited and so cannot be made under the same exception. (IANAL, TINLA) Indeed, I don't believe that there are any lawyers in the house! I do wish that the Foundation would pay for one from time to time to help with general questions like this which matter a lot to potential users of our lovely mapping. 10 non-lawyers are not the same as one lawyer. I will bounce this question of our lawyer at some point in the future and let people know at that point, until then I would encourage people to create combined works. Regards, Peter Miller - Rob. ___ 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
On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Rob Myers wrote: On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms. [citation needed] (http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg) :) I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this. == ODbL == The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of ODbL 4.3 is that reasonably calculated imposes a downstream attribution requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources, you haven't reasonably calculated that any person exposed to it will be aware of the database and the licence.) As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence. (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.) Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a substantial amount of OS OpenData. == Contributor Terms == AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2 revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1). The CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough. The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4 below. The and 4 is new (added at my request). Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence. So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData licence doesn't give you. cheers Richard Thank you for the details Richard. However... on this one I have decided to stay out of any legal discussions and just wait for a clear statement directly from the licensing group. To date I haven't had that clarification and private discussions with a member of the group seems to indicate that the OS would need to adopt Open Government License for it to work and I can find no statement on the web to say that they are doing that.. As soon as I have confirmation from the license working group then I will accept the CTs and will then concentrate on getting the foundation to sort out its Articles of Association. Regards, Peter -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Spam] list of user IDs having accepted the contributorterms
Very useful. I note that currently only 256 of the first 10,000 users are signed up only 1.5% for the first 100,000. It would be great to see what work the other people did and of we have the important ones. I realise that we are still in the voluntary phase but the numbers do seem pretty low. Fyi I am one of the first 10,000 who has not signed up while I wait for a resolution of the OS OpenData query. Has the process of deciding if enough people have signed up been agreed yet. At the SOTM I suggested that we should use the same 'referendum' of active contributors process to approve the change to ODbL as would then be used later for any subsequently changing the license. Regards, Peter On 9 October 2010 19:22, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: as part of the voluntary relicensing phase of the move to ODbL, existing contributors have had the ability to voluntarily accept the contributor terms. to help the community assess the impact of the relicensing it was planned to make the information about which accounts have agreed available. this will help with the evaluation of the process and analysis of any consequent data loss, should the switch be made. at the last LWG meeting, having been put to the board for approval, it was decided to make this available [1], and i'm pleased to announce that this list is now up [2] and being regularly refreshed from the database every hour. i look forward to seeing the new analyses, visualisations and tools that can be built using this data. cheers, matt [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 [2] http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/users_agreed.txt ___ 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] OS map copyright expiry dates, FOI request
On 21 Sep 2009, at 10:30, Ed Avis wrote: Good work! This must mean that if we see Ordnance Survey maps in secondhand shops with a copyright date of 1958 or earlier, we should buy them and start scanning them in. (I know about the npemaps site; is there some other collection of out-of- copyright maps to contribute to?) Warper is pretty neat. Check it out here: http://warper.geothings.net/layers There is a lot of discussion on talk-gb about all this at present - focusing in particular on aerial photography but I believe that Warper was originally set up for old maps (discussion titled openstreetmap's first flight and 'Verticality metre, was: Re: OpenStreetMap's first flight!'). http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2009-September/thread.html Fyi, Steve Chiltern already has a complete set of very clean Series 7 OS inch/mile maps published in the late1950's that have lived in vertical hangers in a university all their lives (so there are no creases etc). He is starting to digitise them as they come out of copyright over the period End 2008 to end 2010. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/7th_Series Regards, Peter -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attribution of data for use on TV
On 19 Sep 2009, at 04:38, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 23:19 -0500, tele...@hushmail.com wrote: My question is what type of attribution is appropriate? I have no problem informing my end-users where I get the data. More than happy to do that. However, do I need to attribute while the application is used on-air? Screen real estate is precious on a TV screen. Plus, some clients are un-easy about attribution during the broadcast. Attributing during the credits roll at the end of the broadcast would be doable I suppose. Anyway, I want to do what is right here. So, do I simply attribute in the app and let my TV users know I'm using OpenStreetMap data OR do I need to attribute on-air? I could easily add an OpenStreetMap attribution in the splash screen and about box. I've noticed almost all the local broadcasters use Google Earth for this, and display a small, translucent Google logo in the corner of the map view. I imagine a little osm.org in the corner similar to Google's attribution would work for that format. That seems to be a good idea. We have a trade-marked logo - possibly that would be useful. I know it isn't a URL but might be more identifiable and 'reasonable' for the medium. Mention on the website associated with a program is another option that has been proposed. We do have this situation described as a 'use case' for the new license and the recommendation against the use case is to create a community guideline for it - possibly we have just done so! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases I certainly don't see anyone who makes and effort and does something reasonable in the circumstances getting criticised. 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] OS map copyright expiry dates, FOI request
On 15 Sep 2009, at 00:59, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, TimSC wrote: The next question that occurs is can OS reverse their view or is an FOI binding in some way. I'd say they can probably always backtrack, but they cannot blame you for taking this answer as face value and start using OOC maps. It is just five years difference anyway, so if you start using the maps on 1st January 2011 and they find out in 2012 and ask you to remove your stuff, you just have to drag the process for a while and you're clear again ;-) Can I suggest that you copy your request/response to the Out of copyright page in the UK maps section on the wiki so we don't loose it. Do also provide a reference back the this thread. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps It could also be good to register it with WhatDoTheyKnow although I am not sure how one does that. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ I agree with TimSC - it would be very hard for them to argue against their own advice in court and I think we can safely take their response at face-value. Good work! Regards, Peter 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] Fwd: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with datacopiedfrom a map
On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:13, SteveC wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/17 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act as a record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some problems of our own. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log actually I just fwded. the request as noone seems to care in talk I wouldn't say they don't care it's just it's a super busy list. Should we have a talk-vandalism list then? I am really conscious that the Lian123 'work' in Esssex/London/Kent/ Medway/Spain (Benidorm) and Germany that is listed on the 'GB-revert' page has compromised some very good work by other people and much of it is just sitting there waiting for tools good enough to dig it out again or at least point out which features have been subsequently edited without removing all the adjustments made by Liam123. This is certainly not the list for the discussion, nor it talk-gb and 'talk' itself is far to busy to have much sustained concentration on any one subject. Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data Working Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or 'plastering over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned member of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member of the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets directly involved in the bigger more problematic cases. A talk vandalism list would also give much more visibility to the work that the Data Working Group is doing and indeed be that record that the foundation needs to prove that it responds to copyright violation. Regards, Peter Yours c. Steve ___ 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] QA with a lawyer
On 13 May 2009, at 01:36, Matt Amos wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: ...and Peter Miller's concerns are legit: If you are the licensor, then, under 4.4.d... Licensors may authorise a proxy to determine compatible licences under Section 4.4 a iii. If they do so, the authorised proxy's public statement of acceptance of a compatible licence grants You permission to use the compatible licence. ... you get to choose what the compatible licenses are, don't you? So I can take the planet file, add a node thereby creating a derivative database, publish it with me as the licensor, and under 4.4 d declare that I am myself the proxy who determines license compatibility, and one second later proclaim that the BSD style license is compatible with ODbL. Yay! Where can I sign up ;-) hmm... that does seem to be a problem. would it solve the problem if 4.4a iii were removed? would that prevent any reasonable use case, to not be able to distribute a derived database under anything other than ODbL or later versions similar in spirit? given that OSMF is the original licensor, holding the database rights, it wouldn't prevent OSMF choosing a new license. assuming, of course, that the terms of the contributor agreement are upheld regarding Firstly, is it reasonably to described the OSMF as the original licensor? Sure .. the OSMF is probably going to be the original licensor of the aggregation of individual OSM contributions to the main OSM dataset however on the wider stage this will not always be the case. There is both the situation were OSM bulk-imports some data from another source into OSM that is published as ODbL where the original data owner can not be contacted which I would hope would be possible, and then there is also the situation where a bit of OSM data is combined with a lot of other ODbL data into another dataset and the a bit of that dataset is combined again with another dataset and so on where the OSM element ends up as a very minor element of some other dataset. For example... an individual OSM contributor finds a useful dataset of the locations of ancient trees that someone has published based on their own research using ODbL. That OSM contributor should be able to import that into OSM without needing to get permission from the original author, in just the same way as one can use a CCBYSA photograph within a book without seeking permission. The author is just added to the list of major contributors to OSM in the 'notices' section. Then someone else publishes a global database of place-names database from OSM which includes all places from OSM together with a geocode and the boundary polygon for the place if we have one. This person actually publishes a whole load of different cuts of the data that people might find useful including world coastline, rivers etc (possibly this person is Frederik?!). They don't know which of the original bulk OSM contributions were used in each of these cuts so include the full list of OSM notices in each of these derivative databases. Then... someone uses the place-names database for a project they are doing somewhere in the world where they take a cut of the OSM place- names database for place-names for the area of interest and combine it with a cut of the OSM coastlines database and also with an ODbL database of sightings of butterflies and an ODbL dataset of weather events and publishes that as an ODbL dataset. This process continues and the OSM dataset is now far from the 'primary' dataset. Do we want to allowed this sort of thing? If not then are we not being 'non-free? If yes then we need to accept the implications of being a modest step in chain of data and we have to ask what controls on the ODbL that flows from OSM we can reasonably expect to maintain. Removing the right for anyone else to migrate to a new license in the situation that ODC is not able to do so would clearly be inappropriate, especially as we can't be sure that OSMF will still exist in 50 years! How do other organisations deal with this situation and can we learn from them? Regards, Peter voting, etc... cheers, matt ___ 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] QA with a lawyer
On 12 May 2009, at 04:13, Matt Amos wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: I have just concluded an email discussion with Jordan following our lawyers review of 1.0 who has answered some points but is now saying that he would need someone to pay him to answer more of them which leaves things in a rather unsatisfactory state given that I am not prepared to pay two lawyers to talk to each other! We have not had any response to the review from the OSMF council to date. i guess its hard for him when he's volunteering so much of his own time to answer all the questions put to him. Sure, and it makes your work here all the more important - thanks So... could you help me with a couple of the points raised by our lawyer at your next Q and A? The review of 0.9 is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO we'd be happy to. lets discuss them now, so we've got a full understanding. I am particularly interested in a view of the following: Regarding point 3 could someone confirm that the Factual Information License has now been dumped in favour of the 'Database Contents License'? This is implied by the latest release candidate but hasn't been discussed on the list to my knowledge. It seems a lot more applicable but our lawyer hasn't reviewed it. my understanding is that the FIL has been renamed to the DbCL and has been considerably simplified. in our discussions we are no longer talking about the FIL. Ok, that is good (and it is also clear from the ODC website) however we did not reviewed it. We will look at it again. Point 9 - Governing Law - Lets assume someone in China creates a new work based on OSM and claims from Chinese law that it is not a substantial extract. That is then used by someone in Vietnam to combine it would something else and manipulate it which makes it more like the original OSM DB and then someone in the UK uses that DB. Can one procecute the final UK company using UK law or would one need to travel to Vietnam and China to do this given that some of the interpretations happened under their law? Clark agreed with your lawyer that having a choice of law is the normal done thing in contracts, and suggested that we would want to consider either US or UK law. apparently this choice of law doesn't have an effect on the IP rights and is mainly for interpreting the contractual parts of the license. in the situation you describe, it is my understanding that we would have a better chance prosecuting the final UK company under IP laws (e.g: copyright, database rights) on the original database. given the difference in IP laws in vietnam or china (i'm guessing) it would be easier to go after them based on the contractual parts of the license. The governing law issue is clearly an either/or. We either use the un- ported version, or a nominated jurisdiction, we can't do anything in the middle! Jordan is keen on un-ported one, our lawyer strongly advocates a nominated jurisdiction and so does does Clark. Clearly this is something we need to make a decision about. one of the things i'm gaining a better understanding of, having spoken with Clark, is that no license is ever fully watertight and we are highly unlikely to be able to defend all of our rights in all possible jurisdictions. in this regard i think we will have to strike a balance with practicality and license brevity. I agree it is all about shades of grey and we have to try to make it more black and more white but won't succeed totally. Point 13. Our lawyer states that the OSMF could change the license as they see fit at any time, and of they can then so can anyone else who publishes a derivative DB as far as I can see which would be alarming. Can you ask who can change the license and by how much. Our lawyer writes: Clauses 3.3 9.3 – The OSMF reserves the right to release the Database under different terms. It is not the current intention of the parties to permit exclusive use of the Database to any single person. However, this provision would permit the OSMF to withdraw the share alike and free access nature of the Database and even to sell it on commercial and exclusive terms. Likewise the OSMF expressly reserves the right to “stop distributing or making available the Database.” this was one of the questions in the write-up and was discussed again in the second call. my feeling is that this isn't an issue for the license, but instead forms part of the contribution agreement between contributors and the OSMF. Ulf did some work putting a three-point contribution agreement together and, as soon as its ready, i'm sure it will be posted here. However if the OSMF can change the license and given that it is a viral license then surely anyone else can also change the licensing of any derived database? Our lawyer mentions that the OSMF could
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On 12 May 2009, at 08:00, Simon Ward wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:14:49AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then introducing it to a large jurisdiction without something like a database directive (the US?), and thereby leaving us with only plain copyright which (correct me if I'm wrong) we choose not to exercise by applying the DbCL? I’m (still) of the opinion that we shouldn’t just throw copyright to the wind in this way while some people (OS, for example) believe they can exercise copyright over elements of geodata, and not just database right. They might be right, or wrong. I hope they’re wrong, but it’s not very well tested. +1 Our lawyer is very clear that copyright is a valid and important element in the set of rights we need to defend in relation to the OSM mapping data. As such the Content License should ensure that those rights are maintained. Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On 11 May 2009, at 23:43, Matt Amos wrote: the OSMF LWG recently had a couple of calls with Clark Asay, who has generously agreed to give OSMF legal advice concerning the new license. i've attached the write up of the first of the calls, in which we went over a series of short questions that grant and i had previously extracted from ulf's compendium of use cases and open issues. clark had lots of useful thoughts which are well worth reading and discussing here. the most important issues are highlighted in yellow, some of which require community input to resolve. we had the second call earlier today and we'll be writing up the results of that real soon now. Very useful Matt. I have just concluded an email discussion with Jordan following our lawyers review of 1.0 who has answered some points but is now saying that he would need someone to pay him to answer more of them which leaves things in a rather unsatisfactory state given that I am not prepared to pay two lawyers to talk to each other! We have not had any response to the review from the OSMF council to date. So... could you help me with a couple of the points raised by our lawyer at your next Q and A? The review of 0.9 is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO I am particularly interested in a view of the following: Regarding point 3 could someone confirm that the Factual Information License has now been dumped in favour of the 'Database Contents License'? This is implied by the latest release candidate but hasn't been discussed on the list to my knowledge. It seems a lot more applicable but our lawyer hasn't reviewed it. Point 9 - Governing Law - Lets assume someone in China creates a new work based on OSM and claims from Chinese law that it is not a substantial extract. That is then used by someone in Vietnam to combine it would something else and manipulate it which makes it more like the original OSM DB and then someone in the UK uses that DB. Can one procecute the final UK company using UK law or would one need to travel to Vietnam and China to do this given that some of the interpretations happened under their law? Point 13. Our lawyer states that the OSMF could change the license as they see fit at any time, and of they can then so can anyone else who publishes a derivative DB as far as I can see which would be alarming. Can you ask who can change the license and by how much. Our lawyer writes: Clauses 3.3 9.3 – The OSMF reserves the right to release the Database under different terms. It is not the current intention of the parties to permit exclusive use of the Database to any single person. However, this provision would permit the OSMF to withdraw the share alike and free access nature of the Database and even to sell it on commercial and exclusive terms. Likewise the OSMF expressly reserves the right to “stop distributing or making available the Database.” Thanks, Peter cheers, matt Q_A_Session_with_Clark_Asay .pdf___ 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] Produced Work
On 7 May 2009, at 02:36, SteveC wrote: Hi We've put together a practical definition for the OSMFs point of view on what a substantial extract is, or isn't http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_Defined And we'd like help similarly with building a practical definition of Produced Work. Here's how the license RC1 defines it: Produced Work – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. Thoughts on more practical definitions? The distinction between and Produced Work and a Derived Database is an important one for the ODbL license and there appears to be an assumption by the authors that something is either one or the other but not both. A BMP, PNG or JPEG map could I guess be safely considered to be Produced Works and not to be a Derived Databases. There may be other formats that come to mind that also fall clearly into the Produced Work category, such as MPEG video used with TV broadcasts etc etc. In our earlier discussions about this issue on the list we identified a number of vector formats that could be considered and used as Derived Databases and Produced Works; including KML, SVG, Postscript and PDF. Vector format such as KML can be used for something very small, such a single node, or very large, such as the railways of the world or conceivably I guess the whole OSM dataset. The above list of vector format is details the existing known formats in widespread usage. There is a general trend towards vector descriptions and usage is only going to grow and we need to allow for the unexpected uses that will emerge. We covered the issue here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#When_is_something_a_Derivative_Database_when_is_it_a_Produced_Work_and_can_it_be_both Commercial mapping companies solve the problem of vector formats by adding a simple clause to their license saying 'no vector data' but I don't think that any of us are proposing something like that for OSM. Personally I think we are going to need to allow these vector formats to be both Produced Works and Derived Databases and explain how one should attribute and license a 'substantial' vector description of 100+ features such as a KML file or SVG file. Thanks for raising the issue on the list Steve. Regards, Peter Best Steve ___ 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] Substantial defined article updated
I have done some work on the Substantial Defined wiki article creating an introduction to the issue and linking to the Use Cases page where there is discussion of the issue. I have also created links from the Use Case page and the Open Issues page from the relevant sections to this article and have added it to the Open Data License category. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_Defined There is an open question as to whether it has the correct title for the page, given that it is only a recommendation which the court may use when interpreting the definition given in the license itself. Possibly we should change its name to 'Substantial - Community Norm' or 'Substantial - Guidance'? Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Legal review by ITO lawyer
Just to let you know that we have now received an update to the legal review we did of the ODbL license from our lawyer. We have forwarded this to the ODC for an initial response and are in discussion on a few points. Some of the issues have been resolved, some are issues for the OSMF not ODC, some are minor and can in our opinion be ignored and some remain. We should be in a position to publish the results tomorrow. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL 1.0 timetable
On 27 Apr 2009, at 20:33, Mike Collinson wrote: 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. Sounds good and its good to see there is still movement. ITO has still not had any response to the our legal review. There are some very serious issues raised in the review and we hope that many have been addressed. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO The community has not had any formal legal comments on the Use Cases page about which ones will work and which will not. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases Is the Foundation proposing to get any independent reviews done on v1.0 by our current commercial users of OSM data? It has been suggested that end-users such as Flickr, ITN News, Multimap should confirm that the license works them? Clearly it will be embarrassing for both parties if Flickr or other people already using the data have a problem with it. ITO will aim to carry out a further review pass between the 29th April and the 6th May and will again publish their comments again. It will be a challenge to do this at such short notice over a bank holiday weekend, however we think we will be able to do the work before then. In order to allow the review to proceed efficiently with this further review can the foundation licensing group ensure that:- 1) The Use Case page is updated with legal council views on each one. It may actually be more helpful to publish this as a .pdf containing both the version of the Use Cases that was reviewed and the legal comments response - we can then keep the Use Case wiki page free to change over time in response to this review. 2) Publish a mark-up version showing the changes to both the FIL and the ODbL as well as a clean copy of the same. Regards, Peter Mike ___ 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] Substantial meaning
On 23 Apr 2009, at 19:42, 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. Here's the first important bit relevant to this in the ODbL: Extraction – Means the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a Substantial part of the Data to another medium by any means or in any form. Which I believe follows the language of the EU database directive. Basically, what do we feel substantial means when someone takes some part of the data? How much is 'substantial'? I won't frame the question further as I can see a number of ways and we, the license working group, would like to get a feel for the communities views. We're not looking for a legal opinion on that here, clearly case law one day has to play a role. Rather, what do we think it means? I added some specific examples to the Use Cases pages some time ago to explored where the boundary of 'substantiality' were or should be:- The license allows the free extraction of non-substantial amounts of data. People will be allowed to extract anything below this threshold and use it completely free of any restrictions. What constitutes a substantial extract. Which of the follow extracts from OSM would be treated as substantial? * UK[2] * An English county [3] * The Isle of white (an island off the south of the UK) [4] * Newport (a small town on the isle of white) [5] * A list of places to eat in Newport [6] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#What_constitutes_a_Substantial_extract I would suggest that all except possibly the last to be seen as substantial. Do others agree? If we were to codify this in numbers would it come down to something like more that 50-100 features is substantial (ie more that 50-100 ways or independent nodes). Seeing the limit higher may allow more 'unexpected applications' to emerge that would find it hard to meet the rules of the license - not sure what they would be (that's why they are unexpected!). The real question I suppose is 'what are we wanting to stop'? Are we wanting to protect every last node or just stop clones of OSM setting up and diluting effort? If it is the latter then we can set the count quite high. Regards, Peter Best Steve ___ 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] Legal review by ITO World's lawyer
2009/3/14 Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz [Off-list] Peter, Thank you very much for making this available. I'll be continuing to digest it line by line over the weekend. Mike (License Working Group) Thanks. I suggest we aim to have a list of questions of clarification on the wiki page by the end of the weekend that I can go back to her with. We don't have endless budget for this, but we can do one round of questions and then possibly get an opinion on the Use Cases. What is clear to me already is that the viral nature of these licenses means that it takes time to get one's head around the issues. I was thinking yesterday about the issue of jurisdictions and came up with this one. Ok, so we need the DB tied to one jurisdiction so that it is enforceable (according to our lawyer), so what happens when someone wants to create a derived ODbL DB by merging two ODbL DBs, one released under America law and one under UK law, and then that is merged with data from Korea etc etc. I believe that would be impossible so we are in a bind. I continue to wonder if we are heading for the same conclusion that CC did - that copy left data is a good idea in theory but is a big mess in practice happy days Regards, Peter At 02:44 PM 13/03/2009, Peter Miller wrote: I have put the legal review we have received for the current license draft on the wiki. I have organised it so that we can comment and discuss the issues after each of the points on the wiki page if appropriate. I can't say that have understood all the points raised yet and their possible implications, but I thought it would be good to start getting more brains on it straight away. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO Can I suggest that we spend tomorrow and the weekend discussing it and then I can seek clarification on any key points on Monday from our lawyer and we can then put the key points to the OKM and to our own foundation lawyers. 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] License Telephone Debate
On 12 Mar 2009, at 10:36, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Liz wrote: Sent: 12 March 2009 10:31 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: Nick Black wrote: I've always felt that you were completely aligned behind the aims of OSM - we can disagree, but at the end of the day we're all here for the same reason. Right now, its really hard to find anything positive or constructive in your ongoing bombardment of these lists. The same people that now want to have a telephone conference have been completely absent from the community decision making process during the last months. I don't know what they were working on but they surely were not working with the community. I simply cannot fathom why they would suddenly - without having made any attempt to connect with the community that was analysing the license draft, finding the problems, hammmering out possible solutions - want to have a telephone conference to help us connect better. I don't find a telephone conference acceptable. While Frederick mentions the troubles of language, I don't want to be on the phone at 0200 local time. I'd rather be asleep, and my critical faculties probably would be asleep at that time even if I was nominally on the telephone. Liz Perhaps for those whose time zones don't fit with the proposed discussion can put their usernames on the licence discussion wiki page. Then the working group can decide if any further sessions are needed. Umm.. there are two parallel processes running here, the community is involved in one and the working group is involved in another. At no point has the working group engaged with the community and asked what might be helpful at this point. I am sure you guys are doing good work but imho the approach around the call is not helpful. Fyi, I am unlikely to take part in the call for the following reasons: 1) I would prefer to be doing something else in the middle of the day at the weekend 2) I don't think it is necessary and probably won't achieve anything that can't be achieved better by proper engagement by the working group with the list/wiki 3) I think it provides a bias towards people who speak English as a first langauge... unless of course the language to be used is German ;) 4) I don't like the way the idea was introduced by the working group To help the process I have provided a signup section on the working group meetings wiki page for people to indicate that they will be taking part http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Licensing_Working_Group_Meetings Regards, Peter Miller Cheers Andy ___ 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] Todays (thurs) license working group call
On 7 Mar 2009, at 00:30, Frederik Ramm wrote: I did something for which those who cleaned up Use Cases might hate me; I pulled in three major items from Open Issues into a new section called Definitions on the Use Cases page. They are not use cases proper, but reading the use cases I found that many of them, in one way or another, circled around the questions of the grey area between what is derivative db/collected db, what is derivative db/produced work and what is a substantial extract. All these questions were on the open issues page because they are open issues; but it is to be expected that they will be answered or the answer at least touched in response to many of the use cases. Good idea Frederik. I have been through the new section this morning and tried to sharpen up the issues and give the lawyers less wriggle room. The main distinction now between the main Use Cases section and this new section is that the new section if specific to the ODbL license (referring to legal terms in a particular version of the license) and also to the technical implementation of applications. I think it is useful to remember that the Use Cases are license neutral - they make no mention to any license or legal terms, they just describe what someone might want to do and if we would like them to be able to do it. Lets keep it that way because we might want to test the Use Cases against another license at some point if we get into trouble with making the ODbL work. Regards, Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 6 Mar 2009, at 11:07, 80n wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, graham gra...@theseamans.net wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: I believe the Foundation intends to give a vote *only* to those who were members in good standing as of January 23rd so your few days had better be 40-ish if you want to have a say in the matter. How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to check the register of members? I paid for membership - once, quite a long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to the Association in respect of my membership - so I guess I've probably been dropped from the list. Is that the way it works? No reminders, and silently dropped? Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of association. Graham If you were a member, but for whatever reason, are not fully paid up, then we give reasonable latitude to pay the fee and be re- instated. You would not lose your right to vote. It's not our intention that members should be penalised because we or you missed an email or a cheque got lost in the post or something. Sounds like this should all get tighened up before the next elections or we might get into 'hanging chad' legal disputes! I do strongly support the setting up of a members mailing list I also strongly support the idea that regular contributor (ie have contributed in three consecutive months) automatically become members and are then dropped if they fail to contribute for over a year, something like that anyway. It would suddenly mean that we had 1,000's of contributors and it would be much harder to dominate the foundation. I know this has been discussed before and deferred, however that is not a reason not to review it before the next elections. Particularly as the whole membership thing seems to be pretty flakey at present. With all this, lets remember where we have come from and how well we are doing. There is no blame in regard to where we are, but that is not a reason not to get to a more professional place rapidly. Regards, Peter 80n ___ 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] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:11, 80n wrote: I may have got this all wrong but it seems to me that Produced Works are potentially compatible with most licenses, but are not compatible with most share alike licenses. I hope this isn't right and that someone can explain the flaws in my reasoning. I can create a Produced Work and publish it under MyWTF license [1]. If I'm the author of the MyWFT license then I can put whatever clauses I like in it providing I admit the ODbL reverse engineering clause and provide the appropriate attribution. However if I try to publish a Produced Work under a share alike licence like CC-BY-SA then I am bound to the inevitable clause that will prevent me from attaching any *additional* constraints to the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA this would be clause 4a which says You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License... So I can't add the extra reverse engineering clause that ODbL requires. Since every share alike license, almost by definition, will have a clause like this there seems to be no way that I can publish a Produced Work under any share-alike license. So, I can publish the Produced Work using any license I can dream up, no matter how draconian, unless it contains a share-alike clause. Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some subtlety that I have missed? This is really something we need a legal view on. Personally and in discussion with our lawyer we feel there is probably a contradiction with the license as drafted and we are looking at it in more detail to see what can be done. I believe that we must allow Produced Works to be CCBYSA and I can't see that anything else would make any sense. We should be aware that we might end up coming to the same conclusion that Creative Commons did, that the only solution that doesn't block some of the important things we do want to allow is to use something like the 'Open Access Data' protocol they are proposing. To be clear we haven't come to that conclusion yet, but there are some significant issues in defining Produced Works, Collective Databases and Derivative Databases to make some key Use Cases work as desired. Regards, Peter Regards, Peter 80n [1] The MyWTF license: 1) Hands off, its all mine. 2) Any data created from this work that constitutes a substantial part of the data contained in the original database is govered by the Open Database Licence (ODbL). 3) This pretty picture contains information from the MyODbL database, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL). ___ 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] ODbL: incompatibility issues
On 2 Mar 2009, at 07:38, Gustav Foseid wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Not so, it turns out; the Produced Work freedom allows us to combine OSM data *only* with other data whose license does not prohibit the addition of constraints, because ODbL mandates that we add the reverse engineering leads to ODbL licensing rule. I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering. Clarification here is needed. When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the wiki and move on to the next topic. We have identified at least two so far, 1) When is a 'DB and derived DB' and now 'what licensing applies to Produced Works and how does the 'no reverse engineering' clause work with PD images. - Gustav ___ 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] Who is ODC and why do we trust them?
On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Grant wrote in his announcement: ... 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.; snip The December 23 board meeting minutes say: No hosting option for the licence is currently available and therefore OSMF may need to host., which suggests that the ODC/OKFN idea is a relatively young one. The same meeting minutes also reported that all communications with Jordan [Hatcher] had broken down; it is good to see that this seemed to be temporary, but still this does not exactly give the impression that the ODC/OKFN connection is a well-thought-out and future-proof thing. Sounds more like clutching at straws as far as I'm concerned. I suggest we create a OSM wiki page for OpenDataCommons and also the Open Knoweldege Fundation and add what information we can gleen from our research to it. We will be getting our lawyer to look into this aspect of the license and will report when we know more. However the legal entity is Open Knowledge Foundation and the directors/ trustees there should be in charge of any changes. We probably need to know a lot more about that organisation and the people behind it. I do however think it looks like a very valuable organisation with a very useful initiative. Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb 09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they publish them to help in this process. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd 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] Who is ODC and why do we trust them?
On 2 Mar 2009, at 09:30, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb 09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they publish them to help in this process. The Jan meeting minutes will be up in the next few days. The February draft minutes will be made available when we have concluded the meeting, which was split in two halves, the second half is on Wednesday. Sounds good. Speed would be appreciated. Regards, Peter Cheers Andy 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] Proposal to update the Use Cases page
I am proposing the update the text on the Use Cases page. I intend to merge some of the different Use Cases and introduce some new ones based on the problematic areas we are exploring on the list. I will also tweek the wording to make it clearer for the next legal review (especially the ones where the lawyer said he didn't understand). I will create a verbatim copy of the contents of the current Use Case page to a new location 'Use Cases version 1' or something before I start. I think these Use Cases are going to end up being twins of an eventual FAQ that I imagine will exist. For example Use Case 1 might end up in the FAQ as 'I want to include a map produced by OSM data in my printed book/newsletter etc. Can I do this, how should I attribute it and what Licence should I use. ' Answer' Yes you can, you should attribute it to OSM using text such as This map contains information from www.OpenStreetMap.org , which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL). The attribution can either appear close to the map itself, an approach which will be suitable if there are other maps in the document form other sources, or you can include an attribution at the start of end of the document in a place were someone would be likely to look for it. You can licence the map anyway you like - Public Domain, CCBYSA, full copyright etc. Note that if you do need to update the mapping data itself then you need to make the improvements available to others. See Question xxx below for more details in this case. Let me know soon if you don't think that is a good idea! Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Spam] Re: License Plan discussion on talk...
On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:34:59PM +, Peter Miller wrote: Would it be possible for someone to summarise the License Plan thread on Talk when it has come to a conclusion? Personally I am finding the intensity of license discussion a bit much the moment and would prefer to concentrate on one list. In addition to talk and legal-talk, we have the national mailing lists, the Open Data Commons mailing list, our wiki, the com-ments web page, plus a number of OpenStreetMap forums in English and other languages. We'll surely try to shuttle back and forth and collect information in our Wiki but it will be a hell of a lot of work. I suggest we try to gather all the issues that we raise on our lists on the wiki. We can then ensure that we get the appropriate responses onto the com-ments web page after we have discussed them. People can of course put their own comments on directly, but I think we can ensure we do a more thorough job if we try to assemble all our issues together in one place and then review them. Regards, Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal to update the Use Cases page
On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Peter Miller wrote: I think these Use Cases are going to end up being twins of an eventual FAQ that I imagine will exist. I am starting to think that perhaps the license should be accompanied by a kind of interpretation document which may or may not be the same as this FAQ. There are probably things that the license will never specify exactly, like the question of where in this chain does that database cease to exist. As stated numerous times on this list, applying the EU definition of database, even a PNG tile is a database... So if we'd have a document clarifying these things for OSM - even if this might not be legally binding but just an expression of intent - that would be a much better basis for the individual mapper to actually say yes. I agree. The license is the License, and that is by necessity written in legal language. If we use the Use Case page to describe common real life situations and then get the lawyers in the end to give their verdict on them it will form a very useful bridge between the practical and the legal. It will also mean that most people will be able to see 'their' use listed with a bit 'yes' next to it which will be reassuring, Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Major update to the Open Database License wiki page
I have reworked the main Open Database Licence page (and renamed it) so that it provides an useful introduction to the whole license background and the current position to a first time reader. I have bumped the detailed content from the existing page to a new page. Check out the page here and please make it better! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License I do suggest that people who are interested in this debate use the wiki 'watch' feature to monitor changes to all of the relevant wiki pages, which should all be in the Open Data Licence category. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Updates to ODbL related Wiki pages and outstanding issues
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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mass import of TeleAtlas data
On 7 Feb 2009, at 21:09, SteveC wrote: Albertas - we will look urgently at this. Thanks. Please also follow up the report by Sarah Manley from CM that the Belarus import is suspect. I forwarded her email from talk to legal-talk on the 14th Jan, but am not aware that any action has been taken. This is not something that the community can do without clear co- ordination coming from somewhere, probably from the foundation. Regards, Peter Here is a copy of the post on talk/legal talk on the 13th/14th Jan. From: Sarah Manley sarah at cloudmade.com Date: 13 January 2009 21:14:47 GMT To: talk at openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] [OSM-talk] data import in Belarus Dear All, I am writing on behalf of someone I met at a LUG meeting I spoke at who is concerned that the data imported for Belarus has a copyright attached to it. I sent him this link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Belarus#OpenStreetMap_.D0.91.D0.B5.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.80.D1.83.D1.81.D1.8C_.2F_OpenStreetMap_Belarus Below here is his response: Copyrights law of Belarus (http://www.law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/7e18184c14ae0e6bc2256dec0042400c?OpenDocument ) list maps and databases as object of copyrights (article 7) and doesn't exempt government works of such nature (article 8). I think will be good idea if OpenStreetMap will require official confirmationsin such exports since (AFAIK) public domain status of US federal government is exception, not a rule. Thanks. I suggest we carry on the discuss on this one on legal-talk - I am forwarding it there. Regards, Peter http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-January/001830.html On 7 Feb 2009, at 12:57, Liz wrote: On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Albertas Agejevas wrote: I am bringing this up in the public forum again as our correspondence with the OSMF secretary Andy Robinson appears to have no results. On 7 October 2008 Andy informed me that OSMF was going to ask these 50-ish suspect users to provide proof that they are legitimate contributors and delete their data if no satisfactory response had been received in 7 days. However, as you can see from my examples above, 4 months past the copied data is still in the database. While we do hear that those on OSMF Board are very busy , I agree that this needs to be attended as a matter of urgency. We should not take any risk with potentially copied material. OSM needs a protocol in which suspect material is reported in a particular manner; contact is made with the mapper involved; a small time period is given for reply; all suspect material removed until resolution. The presence of such a protocol would be of assistance in dealing with claimed copyright breaches. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Best Steve ___ 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] Open Data Licence (Re: 23rd Dec board meeting)
On 25 Jan 2009, at 12:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote: sward wrote: By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts for review, OSMF have forced the process to involve rounds of consultation. It's not OSMF's licence. It is a third-party licence which OSM is considering and on which OSMF has sponsored some work. To my knowledge Jordan has always been very willing to receive comments and suggestions. Not true. It was the case with our earlier legal review which was welcomed and to which he responded and requested further comments. After a few months of no information from the board I emailed him again and requested a copy of the legal text. I got the following reply on the 8th Jan 09: Hi Peter, Thanks for your email. I am working exclusively with Steve, Andy, and Richard on my contributions. Any update will be available through them. ~Jordan If that is news to you as well Richard, then I am really confused. Regards, Peter cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/23rd-Dec-board-meeting-tp21639674p21650895.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On 25 Jan 2009, at 12:12, SteveC wrote: On 24 Jan 2009, at 21:09, Peter Miller wrote: Depending upon the precise circumstances this duty not to accept benefits could be relevant in the case of the Foundation. Presumably Steve Coast Will receive some form of benefit from his other company which could be argued to arise as a result of actions which he undertakes as a director of the Foundation. Dear God. You've been asking your lawyer about me personally. Good lawyers are cautious people and are paid to point out the worst possible outcome - please don't let it get to you. However, we are also pretty cautious and we do expect the foundation to be run carefully in a way that minimises the risk of misunderstanding and we do check things with lawyers. Currently our trust level is going down not up and posts such as the above don't help. You do of course gain one obvious benefit in your capacity as a shareholder in CM from the current situation, and that is that you know well before anyone else what is going to be in it and when it is going to come out. Publishing the draft license would remove any percieved advangate that CM has in this respect and it might be a good idea to do so for that reason alone. Do remember that things are going pretty well overall. We are discussing some thorny issues, but we can resolve them and it will be great, I am sure. There is however a pattern developing where you only post on legal-talk to rubbish suggestions that you don't like and then disappear again. Do please start responding to some of the basic questions on a regular basis and then we can start building up the trust again. 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
[OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Comments on the minutes of the 23rd Dec board meeting It is good that the minutes are now posted. I was however disappointed to get them the day of the next meeting and a month after the meeting in question. It is good to see that the November minutes have been approved. Sub-working groups and communications It is very useful to start seeing brief biographies of the directors appearing on the website (http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-member-bios/ ). Does Nick Black have a 'substantial' shareholding in CloudMade? If so I think this should be noted, otherwise 'none' would be clearer than no entry. Also for consistency with other entries Nick's entry should list 'other directorships' not 'directorships'; there is no need to repeat the OSM Foundation directorship. Steve Coast's entry is very thin. I suggest that it should contain the same level of details as the other - I note that the board minutes indicate that they are still waiting for content from him. Mikel gives a link to his blog. This might be an appropriate addition for the other entries to allow people to quickly understand where people are coming from. Can I say that we have a great board - I love the diversity, it should give the foundation a very strong base. Workshops I am pleased that the planning meeting is going ahead and that it will be a full weekend. I am less pleased that the dates were chosen by the board without checking with others (including ITO) who they know are keen to attend, especially as the dates clash with a holiday booked by one of our key people months ago! ITO has made a big investment in OSM development and does expect to be included in and does wish to attend. Were GeoFabric consulted on the dates, I hope so? Can they make it? I hope so. What about other people? Can Richard Fairhurst - author of PotLatch - make those dates? I believe Sundays were not possible for him. Can CloudMade people make it? I guess so since their two main people were in on the decision;) I see this as one of many examples of benefits that CloudMade give themselves by driving the process. Please can some other dates be proposed? I will again suggest that we put up a wiki page where people can sign up, give the dates that they can make, and then we decide a group which date works best. I have also had a request from a non-english native speaker that the attendance should be limited to people who are actively involved in development to keep the numbers down. This is an important strategic technical meeting and as such I think that it is a reasonable request and will make it easier for people for whom English is not a first language to contribute. It suggest that it should not also become a 'local-meetup' for anyone who is interested and lives locally to come along. TradeMarks and Domains I note that the transfer of the trademarks has still not happened (I checked at the IPO last night). The minutes seem to confuse the process of transferring the application with the process of progressing the applications themselves. I have already provided the following information to the board but will post it here for the record. Possible Grant, Andy or Steve could get the form downloaded, filled out, signed and in the post today - it only takes a few minutes. Here is the advice from our lawyer: The transfer should be straight forward and simple to complete. In case of any doubt, you may wish to let Grant Slater know that the relevant form is TM16 (which can be obtained from the IPO website at www.ipo.gov.uk ). The simple details need to be completed and the form signed by Steve Coast and also on behalf of the OSMF. The TM16 should then be returned by post to the IPO (the address is on the form), together with a £50 fee. I am pleased to see that the other OSM related domains have been transfered to the foundation. OSM Open Data License There are many comments already on legal-talk that I won't repeat here. I do however note from the minutes that all communications with Jordan had broken down. Also that No hosting option for the licence is currently available and therefore OSMF may need to host. These seems to indicate that there is a lot more work to be done. I note that Steve [is] reluctant to publish publicly as it would invite another round of changes ... Henk asked about getting support from major contributors. Nick and Andy felt it was against the spirit of the project to treat some contributors as having special status. Umm, so Steve Coast (director and shareholder in Cloudmade) and Nick Black (director and probably also a shareholder in Cloudmade) and Andy Robinson (paid contractor to CloudMade) think that no one else should be able to comment on the license, notable Peter Miller (director and shareholder in ITO) and Frederic Ramm (director and shareholder in Geofabric) who have asked
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 24 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Rob Myers wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will remove your data shortly'. Clearly this approach will result in lots of people slamming doors! I cannot imagine people leaving if they agree with the licence, and I cannot imagine people who disagree with the licence staying whether it is announced or voted on. Doors will slam either way. There would be no evidence that the majority of the community agreed with the new license, Unless the majority relicence. There is huge difference between the majority being ask one by one to 'relicense or leave now', and one where we are asked if we support it and then later being asked to accept the majority verdict (which is very likely to be in favour of re-licensing). and there were always be accusations of foul play from the inevitable splinter groups. There will anyway. Quite, which is why due process needs to be seen to be done, then we can just shrug and mutter about not being able to please all the people all the time. Currently people will have a very legitimate reason to complain. To be clear, this must be a 'whole community' vote, not a vote by board members, or even just by foundation members. How will the community be defined and how will irregularities and fraud be avoided? Only contributors to OSM can vote. The vote must be made through the OSM messaging system. One person one vote. And how will a silent majority who don't care about licencing not be represented as a vote against the new licence? Only people who vote will be counted. We must recognise that most people will not be interested and will follow the crowd. I suggest a threshold is set for acceptance as it stands. If that threshold is not met then it isn't necessarily back to square one - it might be possible to come back again with a revised version that meets the concerns, but the clear aim is to get it adopted in one go. I don't think a vote is necessarily a good thing. I do think public review is a good thing, however fed up everyone may be. I am glad you agree on a public review. However given that there will still be vocal opposition even after any number of reviews then how do you propose to gauge the actual level of the opposition and if the new license should be adopted? We can assume that one or two people will make a huge amount of noise on the list and give the impression that there is a lot of opposition when this might not actually be the case. I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at present). Thanks Peter - Rob. ___ 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] 23rd Dec board meeting
On 24 Jan 2009, at 13:11, Dair Grant wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
Is there not a large potential conflict of interest between SteveC
in relation
to his driving this change within the Foundation and also being a
director of
a company that could well benefit from the OSM project not offering
a full set
of services? I don't know, but I certainly don't have the
information to feel
comfortable with this initiative until we have some more facts
available to
us.
I think this is uncalled for.
To be clear, all I am saying is that Steve has two different roles and
that there may be different outcomes preferred in these different
roles, that is my understanding of the phrase 'conflicted', not that
the person has indeed exploited the situation (or as you suggest below
is 'evil'!). I can assure you Steve is not that!
I do note that the following definition of the phrase 'conflict of
interest' does seem to imply that there should indeed be evidence of
an inappropriate decision for the phrase to be used. If so then I am
wrong to use it and I apologise for any confusion given.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conflict+of+Interest
According to the above definition I should have said that there is
only the 'appearance of a conflict of interest' in this case. To quote:
The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a
potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with
fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney
commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the
majority stockholder.
There are any number of technical things you need to think through
before
switching from a system that pretty much works to something
(anything) else.
While it's valid to question what those things are, and their
significance,
I don't think you can jump from that to it all being an evil plot
hatched in
CM's volcano lair.
I hope the above clarification is enough to show that I am not at all
suggesting on 'evil plot', only that Steve has two distinct interests.
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.
No, you only have one interest, which is that you are a user of the
data and are advocating your position. You are not also the judge and
jury who is deciding the case or indeed the whole process.
You could argue that as a commercial interest who's been pushing
very hard
for the licence issue to be resolved, perhaps you have some ulterior
motive
too...
I don't have a conflict of interest, I have one interest, which is
that we have a good resolution of this quickly that works for my
company. I agree I am pushing for it, but again, I am also not
deciding which way we jump or on the process.
Nothing useful comes out of that kind of discussion.
Agreed.
The current progress on the licence is certainly frustrating for
those of us
who are thinking about how our companies can best use and contribute
to OSM,
but I suspect it's been a very frustrating process on the OSMF side
as well.
Agreed. I am only suggesting for an improved process which should
reduce frustration on all sides. I am guessing (only guessing) that
SteveC has decided to make this decision 'by decree' because he knows
it is better than repeating a load of futile arguments on legal-talk
where everyone gets cross. My point it that making the decision by
decree has its own serious shortcomings and that we should establish a
better way.
E.g., we have no idea what the background to all communications
with Jordan
had broken down was, or what impact that has had. It would be nice
to know
what happened, but having a public discussion about that while
trying to
resolve whatever the issue was probably wouldn't have been helpful.
Its a tough call and it may be appropriate to keep that discussion
'behind closed doors' but that is not a reason to shut out the whole
community out of the whole process.
I would definitely recommend you stand for the OSMF next year, as I
think
you could make a valuable contribution to the process (e.g., I agree
with
your thinking re the trademark).
I don't know if you'll find the grass is any greener though.
Agreed, however I would probably be more effective helping from the
outside in any number of ways. I believe I am better qualified to
contribute to particular working groups as required than to be on the
board itself. The concept of working groups seems to be emerging at
the moment within the foundation which is a very good sign, but the
process of deciding who is on the working groups currently seems a bit
arbitrary.
Although the licence project seems to be moving forward very slowly,
it is
at least moving (vs what happened previously, where we had endless
GPS-vs-BSD debates on the mailing
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On 24 Jan 2009, at 20:26, Grant Slater wrote:
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/
It is not sufficient to just declare ones interest. The following is
the verbatim response to the question when we asked for clarification
from our lawyer. It seems that the board can vote to allow a
'conflict' however it also seems sensible to avoid such a tricky
situation where possible. I am particularly concerned where two
directors both with the apparent conflicts dismiss the concerns of
another directors (ie those of Henk when he suggested more
consultation was appropriate and Steve/Nick disagreed).
the position under the Companies Act 2006 is that a director has a
duty to avoid a conflict of interest. However the conflict can be
authorised by the Board (section 175, the Act).
Authorisation of conflict requires the Board to vote to permit the
conflict, such vote to be undertaken by the remaining directors. For
the purposes of this vote the interested director (and any other
interested director) cannot be be counted towards either the quorum of
the Board meeting or the vote.
Directors also have a duty to declare all interests (including the
nature and extent of such interest) which they have in any proposed
transaction or arrangement to be entered into by the company. Further
declarations must be made as the scope on nature of such interest
changes (section 177, the Act).
A director also has a duty not to accept benefits from third parties
which are conferred by reason of his being a director or doing (or not
doing) anything as a director. This duty will only be triggered if the
acceptance of the benefit is likely to give rise to a conflict of
interest and/or duties (section176, the Act).
Depending upon the precise circumstances this duty not to accept
benefits could be relevant in the case of the Foundation. Presumably
Steve Coast Will receive some form of benefit from his other company
which could be argued to arise as a result of actions which he
undertakes as a director of the Foundation.
Regards,
Peter
Regards
Grant
___
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] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 23 Jan 2009, at 14:30, Mikel Maron wrote: Thanks Peter. That's a good summation of the reasoning for an evolving license. And essential questions on the process. That process must be open and engaging. There will be more details next week. I am glad you like my summation. However, with respect we only ever get told what stage the process has got to, but we don't get any details about the license itself. I try to ask very specific and what I consider are reasonable questions, and ones to which answers should be available however they just get passed over. The questions I asked this time were: Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I don't know because I haven't seen the text. I got no answer Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said I got no answer. However I note from the December board meeting note (published today) that 'there is currently' no hosting option available other than the foundation', so there was an answer available to the question. For the record I could accept the foundation in this role, but only if serious improvements are made to its governance - which are changes we should be making anyway. I have added these questions to 'open issues' so that I don't have the ask them again. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues Anyway Mikel, it a huge improvement that someone from the foundation posts on this list regularly at all - do keep it up! Regards, Peter Best, Mikel From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:36:47 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22 On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com: Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already? What if the part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the passing of new versions without explicit agreement? I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends. AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you expose it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the license as it evolved. I believe that it will be necessary for the license to be able to evolve within strict constraints without going back to all the contributors for approval because that would be impossible. Indeed it is already be impossible, but we have to live with that and we will loose content as a result. If one does not allow the license to evolve then surely it will not be able to adapt to new IPR laws and situations? I am however very very interested in who will be able to change the license and how much? Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I don't know because I haven't seen the text. Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said. Also, we are being told that there will be very open consultation no future changes to the license. Lets hope that Mikel's energy leads to better engagement in the process. Certainly it is a great improvement to have someone to talk to than nobody even if we still have a way to go. Regards, Peter Cheers ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 24 Jan 2009, at 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, thank you for making the December minutes available. From them I see that you're already having your next meeting today. Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its implementation. If that were to happen then the licence would be back on the drawing board and wholly open to the full discussion process again. We'd be no further on but at least it would have been democratically agreed. Ah, so you're planning to hold a vote. That is a relief, it had not come across so clearly until now. Who will be eligible to vote? What process will be used and what outcome will be considered a yes outcome? I was under the impression that you'd just put the license up and say agree to this or don't but we'll use it anyway and will have delete your data if you don't agree. We can talk later but first you have to agree. Which would of course have been hardly acceptable, hence my questions! Mikel's communication was a bit unclear in this respect. He said We want to move ahead with this draft, and In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license, without ever saying the word vote or contemplating the possibility that the community does not want to move to the license as it is. So the plan is 1. let lawyers do their work 2. publish results 3. allow time for people to digest/discuss/understand but not revise draft 5. hold vote on exact draft as published in 2. 6. if vote positive: implement license and ask mappers to sign up 7. if vote negative: back to the drawing board Is that correct? Mikel? +1 Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will remove your data shortly'. Clearly this approach will result in lots of people slamming doors! There would be no evidence that the majority of the community agreed with the new license, and there were always be accusations of foul play from the inevitable splinter groups. Note that Frederick is suggesting only a 'go/no go' vote without an option to change the document to avoid Steve's concern that we 'will open up a whole new round of consultation' - a concern that I can understand. This method elegantly puts clear responsibly on the board to produce a good license that stands up to scrutiny (which it should do) but it also gives the community as a group a say on whether we accept it. To be clear, this must be a 'whole community' vote, not a vote by board members, or even just by foundation members. I suggest a threshold is set for acceptance as it stands. If that threshold is not met then it isn't necessarily back to square one - it might be possible to come back again with a revised version that meets the concerns, but the clear aim is to get it adopted in one go. Regards, Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com: Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. By moving do you mean starting the relicensing already? What if the part that most people would like to veto is the one allowing the passing of new versions without explicit agreement? I think this is why half of the world uses e.g. GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses rather than GPLv3+ even though that's what GNU recommends. AFAIK by having the actual data under the evolving license you expose it to the sum of all the loopholes present in any version of the license as it evolved. I believe that it will be necessary for the license to be able to evolve within strict constraints without going back to all the contributors for approval because that would be impossible. Indeed it is already be impossible, but we have to live with that and we will loose content as a result. If one does not allow the license to evolve then surely it will not be able to adapt to new IPR laws and situations? I am however very very interested in who will be able to change the license and how much? Will it be possible for the key open elements of it to get removed? I don't know because I haven't seen the text. Who will be able to make changes? I don't know and I don't think the foundation knows either - they certainly haven't said. Also, we are being told that there will be very open consultation no future changes to the license. Lets hope that Mikel's energy leads to better engagement in the process. Certainly it is a great improvement to have someone to talk to than nobody even if we still have a way to go. Regards, Peter Cheers ___ 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] 'Fair Use'
On 12 Jan 2009, at 14:52, Rob Myers wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: There does however appear to be something in the UK about 'fair dealing'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_the_United_Kingdom It seems a possible justification, but it may be a bit weak. Fair Dealing is a list of specific, quantified exceptions to copyright. It won't cover this unfortunately (IANAL, TINLA). Shame Under American law, whatever you can get away with in court. So what if someone in the US adds some data from a UN OCHA map to a global CCBYSA project! I forget what happens when you export it. I wish we were able to retain a lawyer for the foundation who could a) say 'I am a lawyer and I am your lawyer' and b) here is an answer to your question! There can be no certainty unfortunately. So what about a map from UNOCHA that makes no claim of copyright? Everything produced in a country that's a signatory to the Berne convention (and that's most countries) is *automatically* copyrighted, so UNOCHA don't need to claim copyright. I am surprised at that. I thought the (c) line on a document was important. We are asking for permission in parallel, however we are not hopeful about getting a quick response. Yes I can imagine that the UN won't move that fast. And I do appreciate that this is an urgent issue that needs a fast and good response to. Is it worth creating a quarantined/sandboxed/forked version of OSM for use specifically to track the conflict? Data from it could be rolled into the main map as it is cleared. Nice idea. We have talked about it, but there was not enough time. Regards, Peter Oh, so possibly we claim fair use and/or database directive whichever is applicable! I do get the message that we should generally not use this approach. Regards, Peter - Rob. ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] data import in Belarus
Begin forwarded message: From: Sarah Manley sa...@cloudmade.com Date: 13 January 2009 21:14:47 GMT To: t...@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] [OSM-talk] data import in Belarus Dear All, I am writing on behalf of someone I met at a LUG meeting I spoke at who is concerned that the data imported for Belarus has a copyright attached to it. I sent him this link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Belarus#OpenStreetMap_.D0.91.D0.B5.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.80.D1.83.D1.81.D1.8C_.2F_OpenStreetMap_Belarus Below here is his response: Copyrights law of Belarus (http://www.law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/7e18184c14ae0e6bc2256dec0042400c?OpenDocument ) list maps and databases as object of copyrights (article 7) and doesn't exempt government works of such nature (article 8). I think will be good idea if OpenStreetMap will require official confirmationsin such exports since (AFAIK) public domain status of US federal government is exception, not a rule. Thanks. I suggest we carry on the discuss on this one on legal-talk - I am forwarding it there. I am not familiar with the imports/OSM work in Belarus, is anyone else? Sarah Manley sa...@cloudmade.com Cell: 631-338-3815 Skype: Sarah_cloudmade Twitter: SarahManley ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] 'Fair Use'
As you may know a number of us are focusing on mapping the Gaza Strip at present. We have now collected a good body of information on Gaza that is copyright to someone or other. We have identified further sources that don't make any copyright statement. Details here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza#Data_sources What information can we use from these sources under 'fair use' rules? Wikipedia has a good article on 'fair use' here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use I have already annotated the map of Rafah with some additional Suburb names taken from an OCHA map citing 'UN OCHA - fair use' as the source. To what extent can we add additional content from these sources without getting approval from the copyright holder? The wikipedia article gives general guidance on this. Do people have an opinion what level of use would be acceptable? Personally I suggest that we now have a sufficiently mature map based on CCbySA data that we could add suburb names for Gaza and also major facilities on the strip from some of these other map sources without problem - especially as the source for much of this data is UN OCHA. There is a discussion about this on the Gaza talk page, however do feel free to respond here and I will summarise our conclusions on the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza Should we create a 'fair use' page on the wiki and spell out our conclusions? Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New licence? Trademarks?
On 9 Jan 2009, at 15:49, Brian Quinion wrote: We are of course also awaiting confirmation that all trademark applications have successfully been transfered into the foundation's name (they were initial made in SteveC's own name). I hope that this transfer will have been confirmed when the minutes of the 23rd December 2008 Foundation directors meeting are published. http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dcs6phhk_35dkhtq2dj Mentioned that the trademark application had almost certainly failed so I suspect this is now null. I believe the logo trademark application is still alive even though the name failed. I am in communication with the foundation to ensure that it is transferred properly On an unrelated point I'll be happy to help with the NaPTAN and NPTG data sets in any way I can. I've got quite a bit of coding (c, c++, php, not much ruby or java) and data import experience as well as a lot of recent experience with osm data analysis (address search, cluster analysis, etc). I'll add my name to the wiki page but wanted to make personal contact as well Great. We now have three people. Do please add your name. I will add David Earl's name and Oliver's BTW - you could make me very happy and tell me that the dataset includes the postcodes for all bus stops, don't suppose it does? No, there are not postcodes assoicated with the data unfortunately Peter Cheers, -- Brian ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] New licence? Trademarks?
Ok, so here we are in 2009. No new licence (it was promised by Xmas 08), no word update on the current status of the licence on this list during December, no updates to the ODL pages on the wiki and no minutes from the December Foundation directors meeting available on- line yet. I have: 1) added a note to the header of the Legal-Timeline page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Timeline ) indicating that the page has not been updated since it was created on 08Sept08 (it says the licence will be available by Xmas 08 and talks about other tasks that should have been completed in October). 2) I have moved the 'Brief for proposed OSM licence' to 'Open Data Licence/Use Cases' (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases ) so it appears in the category list alongside other ODL page. I also note that the 'Open Data Licence' page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License ) points to a stale page at www.opencontentlawyer.com which now points to www.opendatacommons.org although that site points back to the opencontentlawyer site for the draft of their licence. If anyone knows what is happening here and what should be on our Open Data Licence wiki page then please update it and post about it here. I have not made any changes to the wiki page. We are of course also awaiting confirmation that all trademark applications have successfully been transfered into the foundation's name (they were initial made in SteveC's own name). I hope that this transfer will have been confirmed when the minutes of the 23rd December 2008 Foundation directors meeting are published. I suggest we need to have a re-think about how to get the licence completed but that is a subject for another post - lets first wait until we can read the December foundation directors meeting notes. Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of CC-SA-BY licensed data from OSMafter ODbL takes effect
It does concern me that the only people discussing the licence are not officially included in the consultation process at all and it makes it all seem less useful than it should be. We have also not had any official comment on any of the questions raised on the list recently from the foundation. Licence transition is important but wasn't covered at all in the previous text. None of us have seen any of the recent drafts. I have requested one on a number of occasions without any success yet. This concerns me as we have a considerable amount resting the the licence being suitable for our purposes (as of course do many other users). Our lawyer responded to the foundation to the previous draft some weeks ago but we have had no response from the foundation. I note from the minutes of the last OSMF board meeting (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcs6phhk_35dkhtq2dj ) that SteveC expects to release this licence in the next 14 days Steve confirmed that he was still working to a Christmas completion basis but that there are various important issues still to be resolved. For the record here are the recent posts from Steve that mention since the 1st Oct: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001375.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001592.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001596.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001597.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001676.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/001688.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-November/001756.html I really don't know what else we can do without proper engagement with these important questions from the key people. There is a lot of talent available on this list asking a lot of good questions and I would have hoped that we could get some good answers. Personally I have done just about everything I can. I have put together Use Cases, I have updated the wiki and I have communicated privately with the Foundation but to date this seems to have been met with silence. Regards, Peter On 10 Dec 2008, at 16:52, Rob Myers wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given the very cautious approach OSM has had to copyright infringement up to now, this does seem like a rather reckless and uncharacteristic position for us to take, but I don't think I've heard any other proposals for how to deal with this. Would it be possible for CC to offer a licence transition clause for large scale open geodata projects in the same way the FSF has offered an FDL - BY-SA get out for Wikipedia in the current minor FDL revision? The first addition of data to OSM after this could then be used to relicence the resulting derivative database under the new licence. - Rob. ___ 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] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose databaseisit?
On 10 Dec 2008, at 23:33, Frederik Ramm wrote: Peter, Peter Miller wrote: Where is the official input from the foundation to all this? Lawyers or laymen, we cannot expect that people come up with official answers to our questions within a day - much less can we assume that the Foundation board has coincidentally already provided well-formulated answers to arising questions. They're just people like you and me, and even though we have talked and thought about the licensing stuff forever, we manage to come up with new and unprecedented license questions every other day ;-) All the more reason to discuss this as a group to get the best answer we can. This stuff is certainly not easy and we should have a working party to sort this out not one person and that way we would end up with more brainpower on the subject. A working party is not a 'free-for-all' but a consistent group of people who are asked to solve the problem as best they can within a certain timeframe and have a suitable range of skills and knowledge. Given that we don't have that, what I really want as a minimum is for us to have access to a copy of the current legal text somewhere so we can review it. The version on the foundation website is dated April 2008. Surely there is something more current by now. Btw, if the real message behind your post is that a share-alike licence will never work and we should all go PD then I don't buy it :) Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] OSM Foundation / Domains / Trademark
The August of September minutes have been published. Thank you. Fyi, the draft minutes of the latest meeting are behind password authentication. Can the requirement for authentication be removed to make it generally accessible? I don't know if I have a password as a foundation member, but I don't wish to have to remember another one without good reason. I notice that the October minutes have not (and also nor have the missing January ones and the AGM 08 minutes - I mention these only for completeness). Are these to be published in the next few days? I think we are keen for some firm dates from the foundation re the transfer of domain names, trade marks and other project assets. With respect, the words 'soon', 'shortly' and 'when we get around to sorting the paperwork' have not happened as with any speed in the past (The Jan08 minutes are still due to be published 'shortly'). Can we have some dates by which this will be completed? Btw, is there a good reason why one can not search the pdf documents or copy text from them? I found it confusing that one always comes back with a 'nothing found' for any search. It is also inconvenient when one wants to quote from the minutes. Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) Sent: 01 December 2008 11:57 To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.' Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Foundation / Domains / Trademark Jochen, We posted draft board meeting minutes to the OSMF website so you can get up to date on the workings behind the scenes. We will be doing the same each month going forwards. http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-meeting-minutes/ The osmfoundation.org and stateofthemap.org were both registered by me on behalf of the Foundation to get the ball rolling, it was just quicker at the time. Both will be transferred to the OSMF when we get around to sorting the paperwork. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jochen Topf Sent: 01 December 2008 11:30 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Foundation / Domains / Trademark Any news on that issue? I think a few people here are waiting for an official statement from Steve and from the foundation. btw: Just noticed that the osmfoundation.org domain name is also privately owned. By Andy Robinson in this case. Jochen -- Jochen Topf [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721- 388298 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 30/11/2008 5:53 PM ___ 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] No board meeting minutes since June08?
It appears that no board meeting minutes have been published since June08. http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-meeting-minutes/ Is that correct or are they somewhere else? Does anyone know if the foundation still intends to publish minutes? Regards, Peter Miller ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of OSM-Logo
The minutes referred to in the post below don't appear to mention the trademark application. I can't find a reference to it in other minutes either. Am I missing something? Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grant Slater Sent: 17 November 2008 11:20 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of OSM-Logo Both trademarks are being registered in Steve Coast's own name. Contradicting the OSMF Board meeting on 2007/09/13: - To safeguard OSM's intellectual property Steve proposed that OSMF should secure the OpenStreetMap trademark. Steve stated that the costs of doing so would be in the region of £600. Proposal seconded by Mike. Steve to initiate the process. http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/wp- content/uploads/2008/10/osmf_boardminutes_20070913.pdf The OSMF board is discussing the trademark near the end of the month. / Grant 80n wrote: Richard Logo: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?trademark=2500155 Name: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?trademark=2500154 80n On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johann H. Addicks wrote: The copyright of the OSM-Logo itself is CC-sa-by? Matt Amos drew the original one, cc:ed. When I was on the OSM Foundation board last year there was some discussion about trademarking it. I'm not sure where that is now though - anyone from the board here? cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Update to Open Data Licence page
I have done some edits to the Open Data Licence Page. I have 1) Created a 'See Also' section with links to other related pages (some of which were listed previously in the intro paragraph) 2) Edited the criticism section to make it clearer, to remove detail and link to other places for that additional detail I have also added a number of legal related pages to the legal category including the 'Public Domain Map' and the 'Brief for Proposed OSM Licenece'. I note that the ODbL Timeline page is out of date in that some task with 'TO DO' against them are actually being done and that the last (and only) edit of this page was back in early September. Can people (Tom/Steve?) please add their names to work that they are doing and keep the page current. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License/Timeline This is all part of a general focus from my side to get the legal wiki pages into better shape prior to any voting or requests for people to sign up to it. Thanks, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Updated Brief and Use Cases page
I have given the 'brief and use cases' page a bit of a tidy up over the past day and moved a lot of the content around. I have: 1) Put the Use Cases ahead of the brief, because the Use Cases seem to be getting most of the attention 2) Re-ordered the Use Cases to put the most common and simplest at the top 3) Group use cases like with like. Simple maps first, then applications that combine OSM data with other data, and then ones that are about deriving and extracting data from OSM. 4) Cleaned up the wording on some Use Cases 5) Responded to some comments 6) Added a link to the Public Domain Map page from the intro http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Brief_for_proposed_OSM_licence I have done this work as a number of separate edits so it should be possible to see the different changes from the history page. There seem to be a number of outstanding issues from my perspective which include: Should it be possible to licence 'end user experiences' any way one wants, or must they be licenced to avoid the possibility of reverse engineering mapping data from them. My understanding is that once one has put the map into the public domain then anyone can use it as a source of a new DB that is public domain. A slippery map that has PD tiles could rapidly be used to create a PD dataset. If there are restrictions on licencing end-user experiences, then what should they be? The Hand Made Map use case has some claims in it that I have challenged after the use case. We certainly don't have a claim on the artistic elements, but should expect any errors or additions to the OSM data to be offered back. What about wikimapia? Personally it seems like an example of extracting a public domain DB from the OSM while avoiding the share-alike clause and so this should appear in the negative use cases section. Can I ask anyone who has any comments or observations about use cases generally to put their questions both onto the wiki page and also onto this list? Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] [Announcement] new mailing list: legal-general
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Collinson Sent: 31 October 2008 16:47 To: OSM; legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] [OSM-legal-talk] [Announcement] new mailing list: legal- general After some requests and OSMF board discussion, I've created a new mailing list: legal-general Very good We'd ask that higher level discussions such as pd etc move to that from the existing legal-talk and that we keep legal-talk to specific practical issues regarding OSM's actual license and, in what is the final countdown, to the fine tuning required to get the new proposed license ready for presentation to the entire OSM community. Great; I have joined the new list. I can't promise that I will be a very active contributor, but will be listening. Can I suggest that the 'Use Cases' page I created is used as a place for all Use Cases, including those being discussed by PD advocates? I am suggesting this because it will help keep a connection between the different proposals. If you add the Use Cases that makes the SA licence struggle then so much the better. Would it also be appropriate to add an intro to the PD licence on the same page in a similar format to the SA licence brief? Yes, I know it will of course be a lot shorter ;) I was also considering creating a table with an entry for each use case and with a column for each licence, including the current CC licence, the proposed ODbL licence and also the proposed PD licence so that we can see where we stand on each use case. Of course all the Use Cases will get a tick in the PD licence section (including the Use Case in the 'negative' list). As such it would make that page less partisan and possibly a useful meeting place for future decisions. Would that be useful? Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Use cases: Click-through
Frederik Ramm wrote: I have added an extra use case on the click-through topic, basically saying that we'd like to avoid having to set up a tightly controlled environment where everyone has to make sure to only pass the data on to people who have agreed to some legal document beforehand. Thanks for that Frederik. I have tightened up the wording for your use case. Please check it and ensure that it still is satisfactory from your side. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Brief_for_proposed_OSM_licence#Freel y_distribute_OSM_data_without_registration.2Fuser_tracking Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Timeline for implementation of the ODBL
I have just noticed that SteveC created a wiki page outlining his proposed process for implementing the ODBL Licence about a month ago. Here it is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License/Timeline Does this make sense to people? This is good but it does raise various questions. There are questions on the page, and there are also comments and further questions on the talk page. Can I suggest that we take a look at this and discuss it? Personally the main absence seems to be any discussion, feedback and approval process with the community about either the process or the licence licence itself. The general approach presented is 1) write it 2) take legal advice 3) email every contributor about ask them to change. I note that there was no post on this list to say that the page existed and that initially it wasn't categorised as legal. Also that there was no comment from SteveC or anyone else when I started posting about the need for a project plan. Also, that some questions on the talk page have gone unanswered. Oh dear! I also notice that there are technical tasks that need an owner and other items on the TODO list. Any offers? Shall we initially discuss our thoughts here and on the talk page of the Timeline page and what tasks we could all offer to take up? Fyi, ITO might also be able to produce thematic maps for any particular area saying what data is at risk based on the current user base and what data is not. It would list which contributors had accepted the new licence (base on their user page) and who had not. Would that be helpful in motivating local folk to go and seek approval from those who have not responded in their areas? Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
Don't set up too much of your own structure just yet, because it is very well possible that it makes sense to fly under the flag OpenStreetMap/PD once things are a bit clearer, but you cannot possibly expect many from OSM to endorse the thing when so little is clear about it... personally, I would much prefer OpenStreetMap/PD or something like that instead of a completely different name, and also have friendly cooperation between both in the future. I don't suppose there should be objections to setting up a pd-talk list on openstreetmap.org. Tom Hughes would be the person to ask, and be sure to supply him with an email address for the list admin. I think it would be much better to set up a pd-talk or something within the OSM project, there is no reason why this should not be discussed within OSM and you may even win the day :) Would I give my data to PD... possibly, not convinced yet but the answer is certainly not 'no way'. Would I join pd-talk... no, I will continue to focus on the share-alike licence as needed, however I would be interested in hearing you 'pd guys' demonstrating why you thing the project would hang together and not split into loads of rival projects under PD. To me the only strength of share-alike is that it makes it more likely that people will behave cooperatively and create a single quality mapping source for the whole world. PD seems to make it too easy to set up 'me-too' projects and split the effort. I would ask the pd-talk list to identify other successful PD datasets that are vigorous and are full of high quality data as part of their argument for a PD for OSM. Until then I will try to help the move to a better share-alike licence and my company will continue to develop tools to help contributors to OSM improve the quality and completeness of the data. Regards, Peter Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...) To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work to produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to explain to say the least. Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which I suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it from the ODBL page. Thanks, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call forcomments
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dair Grant Sent: 16 October 2008 16:31 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call forcomments Jonathan Harley wrote: A bit map would not be a database, but XML, csv, xls, shape files would. The interesting distinction may be vector data that is not organized in a direct searchable fashion - so, would svg (for example) be a database? H... Definitely. Searching an SVG or any XML file can be done the same way you would search a relational table with no index - by accessing each data item and examining it. Playing devil's advocate, that sounds very much like a bitmap could also be considered an un-indexed database - it's a table of (x,y,colour) where the colour is derived from OSM data. You could argue we use a system very much like this in OSM itself, querying the oceantiles.dat database to make all water or all land decisions. Can I suggest that we leave this as a question for the lawyers? We can guess what might be a database and not be a database but they will be able to quote case law. FYI, I am meeting our IPR lawyer in the coming week in relation to the proposed new OSM Licence (as drafted and as in the brief/use cases on the wiki) in relation to ITO's business needs. I spoke to her at length today on the subject and I am pleased to say that she appears to know a great deal about the subject. One of the outputs from this process will be a set of informed recommendations and observations which ITO will make available to the OSM community and to the foundation to help in the licence drafting process. Regards, Peter Miller CEO, Ito World Ltd -dair ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final callfor comments
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward Sent: 14 October 2008 23:48 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final callfor comments On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:36:39PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: I was really signalling that I had got the Brief and Use Cases into a form where I was happy with them and where I thought they covered the issues raised but needed confirmation re that from others. The way you phrased it made it sound final even if it wasn't. May I suggest that if you have a timetable for working out your brief that you publish it, _before_ telling people their time is up? Fair point! Let's just say that I am pretty much done on the Brief and Use Cases, and SteveC has confirmed that he is meeting the new lawyer pretty soon and he also mentioned that he will be using Use Cases in his brief to the lawyer (and hopefully something like the proposed Brief as well but he hasn't confirmed that to me or the list) and so it would be good to have any concerns about the proposed User Cases raised before that un-specified date. My experience is that setting a 'deadline' is a good way to get feedback, even if the deadline it actually turns out not to be a deadline. Without knowing what the actual date is (and I don't think SteveC knows that yet) I suggest we work to our own timetable. If anyone wants to suggest a better cut-off date then fire away, possibly Monday would give people more time to respond because clearly no one is going to be talking to lawyers over the weekend (that's really expensive!). Let's not just let time slip by. As the saying goes 'Q: How did this project get a year late? A: One day at a time sir!) Regards, Peter Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.-John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm Sent: 13 October 2008 00:14 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License Hi, Peter Miller wrote: Mike uploaded the draft licence to the foundation website yesterday http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/the-openstreetmap-license/ Good. I will translate this into German to generate some interest on talk-de. I'm not exactly looking forward to having to act as the first port of call for anyone who doesn't like something but I can always say it is THEIR fault. No, please don't do that yet! To be clear this is an old draft licence which of course does not take into account any of the changes that we have discussed in the past few days, or indeed for the past months. I understand from Steve that the Brief and Use Cases we have been drafting will be used as part of the input to this process (with no promises about if the points can be included though) so let's concentrate on getting these right first. If you translate anything into German then can you translate the Brief that we have been talking about on this list? FYI, I have made some changes to the Brief in the past 24 hours to reflect various comments and have also numbered the paragraphs. Check the main ones out here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Open_Data_Licensediff=164485; oldid=164154 In particular I have: 1) Clarified the difference between automatic processing of the Dataset (which is not a Derivate Database) and adding additional information (which does). 2) I have introduced the concept of a 'competent person' in the definition of how any Derivative Database should be distributed to help define what is a suitable format and what is not. 3) Added more words on Collective Databases. 4) Clarified the differential database option. The main issue I personally still have with the current draft of the brief is around Collective Datasets (which may contain the whole of OSM dataset or a very large part of it together with random other stuff). Personally I think the logic of what we want to achieve is that any Collective Dataset that is to be released must be released under this licence (or similar licence). If not then we don't have control over any subsequent changes to the OSM part of the content. It is not however a requirement to release the Collective Dataset at all (which may be impossible if it contains other data on incompatible licence such as full copyright). Regards, Peter I think there are some points arising from the last days of discussion that are not (yet) covered by the license (most importantly the lack of distinction between public and restricted distribution and also the question of what happens if you take a substantial extract but make an insubstantial change e.g. osm2pgsql) but I will first focus on the smaller details that spring to (my) mind on reading this draft. (Bear in mind I'm not a native speaker so might interpret some things differently.) 1.0 Capitalised words This defines Extraction and Re-Utilisation as terms that only apply to a all or a Substantial part of the data, rendering all later occurrences of the term Extraction of all or a Substantial part... useless and making Extraction of Re-Utilisation of insubstantial parts (as discussed e.g. in the paragraphs on Substantial) impossible. - The word Substantial must be dropped from the definition of Extraction and Re-Utilisation to make sense. 2.2 b Database Rights Database rights can also apply when the Data is removed from the Database and is selected... - removing data from a database to me means deletion and this makes the sentence funny. Should this perhaps read Data is extracted...? 2.3 Rights not covered This says that the license does not cover patents or trademarks. Which is good because otherwise it would be much longer. However, to avoid misunderstandings, I think that the specific OSM license we will later use should have some extra text saying that by uploading to OSM you say that you are not aware of any patent applying to what you're uploading. Otherwise someone could maliciously upload a complex construct that somehow falls under a patent and poison our database with it - or am I too cautious here? 3.1 Grant of rights ... for the duration of any applicable Copyright and Database rights. In many other places in the license, care is taken to always talk of Copyright and neighouring rights, and Database right. Why the omission of the neighbouring here - purpose? Plus, I'd like an annotation here that says: The license only extends for the duration of the applicable rights because after that the data base can be used without a license anyway - which is obvious, legally, but might not be obvious to anyone reading this (huh, do I have to stop using the data after Copyright has
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
I have updated the wiki 'brief' to reflect a number of issues raised in the past few days. 1) I have removed all references to 'public' in the brief and now ensure that Derived Database are distributed at least as widely as the end-user experience itself and that others are free to distribute it more widely. 2) I have added a clause to clarify that automatically processing the dataset into a new form not in itself constitute the creation of a derived DB and that the original DB can be used if preferred. 3) I have added clarification that the derived DB should be provided in a suitable form and by a suitable means to allow it to be use by a 'competent person'. I hope this captures the issues about having any derived DB usable without unduly restricting access to the contents by the form, structure of the data or means while available tying us into any current technology. 4) I have added a clause about providing a differential dataset together with access details for the main dataset. The licence page is available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for 'DSFG-compliance' Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst Sent: 11 October 2008 00:18 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM Simon Ward wrote: It shouldn't be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points under discussion. One of my objectives when I was working with Jordan, and other OSMF members, on the licence was that it would be DSFG-compliant. Now we may well have failed but at the moment this whole discussion is bonkers hypothetical - people are levelling accusations at a licence that they haven't even seen. I didn't submit myself for re-election to OSMF this year, so I can't do what I'd like to and just post the licence right here, right now. I have suggested that it be published and eagerly await OSMF doing so. Maybe others would like to suggest the same. However - and with the proviso there may be a host of little niggles of comparatively little import - I do think it's a seriously good, well-considered licence. I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876 messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before. cheers Richard ___ 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] Paid services from OSM
I notice that the conversation has moved on from issues around Derivative Databases to factual/copyright data. Can I confirm that we have agreement on the previous point re Derivative DBs? Can I suggest: 1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the dataset has merely been processed into a different format. 2) We clarify that when any derived Database should be made available in a 'reasonable' time period. This deals with the minutely update concern. 3) That any Derivative Database can either be provided together with the end-user experience or can be published in a publically accessible forum where an interested user may be reasonably expected to find it. [Not sure is this is good enough - do we really always want full publication of the DB?] 3) That any Derived DB should be made generally available in a form designed to allow it to be conveniently processed by a computer. [The wording isn't very good - but I think you see what I am getting at] Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm Sent: 09 October 2008 00:43 To: Iván Sánchez Ortega Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: Namely, by spending that time, IIRC, you have created a derived DB (you have changed the format of the data). You have to let people extract data from *that* DB. So OpenStreetMap would really have to publish psql dumps of the data structure created by osm2pgsql. (Seems I misunderstood you, I thought you denied that idea.) Next question... do we *want* that? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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 license: What is publication/distribution?
Thanks for adding the new use cases. To be clear the process is to first catalogue the Use Cases and then to ensure that the new licence works with them as far as possible, not the other way round. It will be interesting to see if the current draft currently covers them, but is not essential. The introduction paragraph of the ODBL wiki page does point to the draft licence text; however this draft is very out of date. A later draft of the licence with some minor changes made by a pro-bono lawyer representing the OSMF does exist but has not been released to the community yet. There may by now be a further draft following a scheduled meeting between Steve Coast and a lawyer a week ago on behalf of the OSMF however I have had no information about the outcome of that meeting. Andy Robinson indicated that information would be available on the OSMF website 'soon' in a post on this list on the 28th Sept. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-September/001212.ht ml Can I suggest that we continue this useful discussion based on the information already available to us and remind ourselves that this is a process that can occur without the legal text as it is really part of the specification phase? We can be catch-up with the legal text is due course and the OSMF gives us more information! I think we should add a clause to the brief about 'fair use' and then give examples of when we believe this is appropriate, ie when 'non-substantial' parts of the DB are used which may be relevant for some of the use cases. Regards, Peter _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kari Pihkala Sent: 07 October 2008 08:05 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution? I had a look at the Use Cases at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License and most of them are very traditional - printing a map/book, TV, DVD and a map on a web page. What about modern use cases, mainly web-based mashups?? I added a use case for photo geotagging (ala Flickr), blog geotagging, microblogging and wikipedia. Also, embedding coordinates in urls and as hCard metadata. Have a look at them. Does the new license allow these? How should OSM be attributed? BTW - The Open_Data_License page is referring a lot to some sections (4.4, 4.4c..) - are those sections in the new license, and where can they been seen? BR, Kari On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward Sent: 07 October 2008 00:47 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution? On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: I have added the brief to the wiki here. Notice that I have also created a 'Use Cases' section heading where we can add key example uses of the data which we can use to validate the final licence. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License I'd just like to say thank you very much for this, and the discussion you have helped provoke so far. Thanks, I am please how well the process is working. I notice some changes to the wiki page, and that there are new words to clarify what is public and some new use cases which is good to see. I have gone through the wording in the brief to try to clarify and condense the new elements. I have also moved the comment about making a million DVDs to the Use Cases section. There is still more work needed on the Brief and on the Use Cases but it is certainly getting there. Peter Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.-John Gall ___ 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 license: What is publication/distribution?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst Sent: 06 October 2008 13:39 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution? Frederik Ramm wrote: By speaking of public on one hand and wholly internally on the other, the license seems to omit those cases where (a) the use is still internal but involves work from someone else, like the print shop or the auditing example, and those where (b) the use is not really public but still takes the form of distributing a product to one or more people or organisations. Yes, it's a good point. Suggest you formally submit the request to OSMF, maybe quoting Rob's GPL example. I don't like the phrase 'submit your request', it sounds very hierarchical. Given that the OSMF I still being very silent about what they are doing and not doing around the licence I suggest that we continue to work on these definitions ourselves here and I suggest that we use the wiki page to capture our conclusions. We should assume that the relevant people on the OSMF will take note and contribute as appropriate in due course. I have added the brief to the wiki here. Notice that I have also created a 'Use Cases' section heading where we can add key example uses of the data which we can use to validate the final licence. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License Feel free to tweek it and add comments to the talk page to say why you have done it. I may be a little silent for the rest of the week due to other work pressures. Regards, Peter cheers Richard ___ 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 license: What is publication/distribution?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst Sent: 06 October 2008 16:08 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution? Peter Miller wrote: I don't like the phrase 'submit your request', it sounds very hierarchical. Given that the OSMF I still being very silent about what they are doing and not doing around the licence I suggest that we continue to work on these definitions ourselves here and I suggest that we use the wiki page to capture our conclusions. If you wish. I intensely dislike using a wiki for discussions so will stay here. Nor do I personally see why we need this brief - ODL already does what I want a licence to do. Legal-talk is good for talk and yes, it should probably stay here, but the wiki is good for capturing agreed changes so that others can see what was agreed without having to trawl back through every email. After all, the Map Features wiki page is purely a summary of the conversations on talk about individual issues but people wouldn't expect newbies to read all of talk to learn how to tag. I put the current version of the brief on the wiki because I want to avoid being the 'owner' of the current draft of the brief. I know you are happy to read the licence text; however I still think a more approachable document has value, particularly if we find things we want to be change. I can almost read legal text, but I can't write it, that's what lawyers are for. Thanks, Peter cheers Richard ___ 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 license: What is publication/distribution?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward Sent: 07 October 2008 00:47 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is publication/distribution? On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: I have added the brief to the wiki here. Notice that I have also created a 'Use Cases' section heading where we can add key example uses of the data which we can use to validate the final licence. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License I'd just like to say thank you very much for this, and the discussion you have helped provoke so far. Thanks, I am please how well the process is working. I notice some changes to the wiki page, and that there are new words to clarify what is public and some new use cases which is good to see. I have gone through the wording in the brief to try to clarify and condense the new elements. I have also moved the comment about making a million DVDs to the Use Cases section. There is still more work needed on the Brief and on the Use Cases but it is certainly getting there. Peter Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.-John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Please enable commercial use
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 09:00:22 +0200 From: Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please enable commercial use To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Frederik Ramm wrote: I think the biggest problem for commercial users is probably the fact that they can't get legal info from us - if they ask can we do X then our response will always be read the license and ask a lawyer. I agree, that is very unsatifactory. It is even inconvenient to me as a private person, and it is a killer argument for commercial firms. If they say but I would really like to do X, if you give me in writing that I can do X I'll give you $10.000 and print OSM adverts on every GPS I sell, then we still cannot say it because we're not the owners of the data. In Linux that problem is solved by companies bying their product from Redhat, including some kind of insurance that RedHat provides. If there are legal hassles, then Redhat would be sued and RedHat would have to deal with the 2 copyright holders and not the end-user (if you are not SCO and live in a parallel universe). spaetz Personally I think the biggest gap in OSMF at the moment is the lack of available committed legal brains. As far as I can see OSM has gone through two phases and is entering a third. Firstly, as a techie dream, where the main activity was creating a set of tools and a DB to hold the results and start seeding it with data. Then a community building phase where the community started collecting data and improving the tools. Now we are entering a 'user' phase where we have something of value that people may want to use and may also wish to attack. In this new phase we need to change the emphasis again, this time to a more legal angle. We are of course entering a commercial phase now, with CloudMade getting funding. I believe that OSMF urgently needs to appoint a paid legal brain to work on-behalf of the foundation to support the project, to answer these questions and to build the FAQ and Use Cases etc. The person should be legally responsible to the foundation for their actions and with a medium term contract, ie 1 year, possibly they should be a director with similar responsibilities to a Legal Council. I know that that person may be expensive (although this would not be a full time role. I realise that the OSMF is taking external legal advice at the moment, but progress seems very slow and the person is not available to build the FAQ or answer questions etc. Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License update
I posted a query about various 'Use Cases' for OSM data in regard to the new licence on the 7th Feb. See archive here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.htm l I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and that no response has been given by a qualified lawyer. With regard to the brief for this licence and the acceptance procedure for the completed licence I recommend that we: 1) Agree aims of the license in non-legal terms as a set of Use Cases on the wiki. 2) Agreed in advance an acceptance test for each Use Case; for example if the use case is using OSM mapping of Bagdad for an ITN news item about Iraq then we ask ITN to check the proposed licence and say if it is acceptable to them or not. If we want the data to be usable by Mutlimap within their current page structure then we ask them to ask their lawyer to sign it off. If we don't want people to strip the footpaths and add then to a commercial road data and sell it then we agree to get the licence checked by an independent lawyer in this respect. 3) Get a licence written that meets these use cases to the greatest extent possible. 4) Test the licence via the use cases using the agreed mechanisms. 5) Recommend the licence for adoption by the community. Regards, Peter Miller ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
