Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
andrzej zaborowski schrieb: I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects. Interesting to see Mozilla mentioned here as clearly every contributor retains his rights when contributing to Mozilla code and does not assign any of his rights to anyone. You're right when it comes to FSF though, they have a strict copyright assignment policy, when you contribute code there, you don't own it any more but the FSF does. Also note that under the OSM CTs, there is no copyright assignment per se, there is only a sub-license agreement. You don't *give away* your copyright, but you allow the OSMF to to *use* your copyrighted material and sub-license it. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Mike Dupont schrieb: This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, they are my contributions that I then willingly share with others. This is exactly what the CTs say. You sign there that you own your edit and grant the OSMF to sub-license it if needed and under well-defined terms. IMHO it's a shame we only introduced such terms so late. When I started contributing, my understanding was that I was *giving my contributions to the project* which includes that the project can use it under share-alike-style terms and license them for use of anyone, but I always wondered why there was no agreement I needed to OK that said that in detail. (Of course, the OSMF is the legal representative of the project, as the project has no legal standing by itself at all.) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb: [Robert Kaiser, 11.08.2011, 21:17]: Most of us always agreed that our data is the data of the OSM project as soon as we contributed it, and that the project will always be able to use it. Some disagree apparently and make the life of the project much harder. Unfortunately it is not „the OSM project“ that will decide what happens with the data in the future. Oh, but every self-respecting member of the project is who will decide. And as for the OSMF, I cite www.osmfoundation.org with The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share. I'm happy to grant some rights to my data to such a foundation so that I don't have to care about every legal bit myself. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schrieb: So by citing my e-mail without a license, you made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually republishing copyrighted work No, only if it wasn't properly cited, as (AFAIK) most IP laws require you to point out who is the author unless the author states otherwise. There is no infringement if you state who owns the copyright over what you republish - the actual reason for creating copyright in the first place was to make sure proper attribution is given. May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived work ? That it would be, AFAIK, yes. There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of intellectual property ! True, and that's what CTs and a license are for! BTW, if you would want to change OSM to be PD, you probably would need to wipe the map clean and restart from scratch, as most contributors want an attribution to the project at least - and that's what's not guaranteed with current CC-BY-SA due to not applying for databases appropriately in some jurisdictions. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Ed Avis schrieb: The CC-BY-SA licence does seem to be a lot more straightforward than the ODbL/DbCL combination. As I understand it, that's because any current CC-BY-SA license does not really cover databases as described by database laws in some jurisdictions, and neither collections of factual information as described in other jurisdictions, while the ODbL/DbCL combination does. (Although the uncertainty could be mitigated by agreed community norms and agreed interpretations, there isn't any body able to define them: the OSMF cannot grant exemptions from the strict letter of the licence or issue clarifications about what it means, because the OSMF is not the copyright holder.) Well, IIRC that's exactly one of the points of the CTs, granting the OSMF the right to allow exemptions in some cases. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Florian Lohoff schrieb: More interestingly - Why on earth cant i contribute although i stated that all my contributions can be considered CC0/Public Domain? Why do i need to accept the CT, granting some spooky special rights to some folks i dont know and who definitly not act in my name. If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly OSM community can help your resolve the problem of not agreeing with yourself. ;-) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb: The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to contribute. It it defined anywhere what contribute means? I have heard statements before that sending messages, e.g. in here, also counts as a contribution, as does replying to a request to vote. IMHO, if you log into your user account (e.g. because you got a message about a vote), that's already contribution. But I wonder if the CTs define that clearly anywhere (sorry, no time to find and read them right now). Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Francis Davey schrieb: There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong in principle in holding a vote by email You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even the slightest guarantee that a normal email is transmitted to the right recipient correctly. or indeed by any other electronic means. I vote for other electronic means, then. ;-) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Anthony schrieb: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Ed Avis schrieb: Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of how active contributors are defined? There's not a clear definition of how 67% is defined, though. If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Rob Myers schrieb: Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand? Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Ed Avis schrieb: Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of how active contributors are defined? Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony schrieb: 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind) make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different terms you like, right? I think it's clear that what is currently in the OSM DB will can be used under what the current terms apply, so we can't take away the unfairness for the data that is in there already - we can for data we add in the future though, from the point on where we contribute under changed terms. That said, I personally would have no problem if we'd have our data be PD in all jurisdictions, and I have no problem with having the same share-alike-type terms in all (major) jurisdictions. What I have a problem with is if we provide a significantly different playing field dependent on where in the world you are. A geographical database with geographical unfairness somehow feels wrong to me. ;-) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony schrieb: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but IANAL, so I really can't explain details. I just know that very (to me) believable and knowing sources here have clearly stated repeatedly that using CC-BY-SA for our data collection is equivalent to PD in some major jurisdictions in this world, while ODbL isn't (and though I fully would accept working under PD, I find it unfair that people have different permissions to use our data depending on where they live). Robert Kasier ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb: I know that this thought experiment is absurd. I generally trust the OSFM to do the right thing. But I would be far more comfortable with being able to opt-out of any license change that I consider problematic. How do you think that can work in practice? We are editing data all the time that has come in by the way of someone else, and changed by yet someone else. It's not your, my, or his data, from the moment of contribution on, it's our data in terms of the OSM project. If you can opt out of a (future) license change, then IMHO the only reasonable way if by not contributing any more data under the other license, but you have already given away any data before that point, you don't own it any more, and you shouldn't be able to prohibit the project from using it any more. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
Eric Jarvies schrieb: Is Google Maps(MapMaker) now starting to use OSM data? From all I've heard, they probably have been for some time, and given they are in the US, they probably can legally use our data under the current license just like it would be PD, so they are happily doing that. IANAL, and all information is from hearsay, but that's how I take all that. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony schrieb: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later clause). Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org project? CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an and later clause. Where later, i.e. 3.0 explicitely does not apply to databases like OSM. So only one more reason for us to switch elsewhere. But we know that already. And ODbL is not in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL is in the same spirit as GFDL. That's your opinion, and anyone with legal knowledge in here seems to dispute both of those statements. But of course, you can't use a documentation license for creative works, a code license for documentation or a creative license for a mostly factual database - at least not reasonably. And that's what all our relicensing is about in the end. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Francis Davey schrieb: Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to certain exceptions. While that may be true, anyone not trusting the organization that operates all of the software and hardware of the project (the OSMF in our case) should not have contributed any data to the project as a whole in the first place. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Simon Biber schrieb: I want to contribute my mapping work to a community who will respect my wishes that the work remain free. This includes that no-one should be allowed to make a derived work and not allow others to have the same freedom over the derived work. This is the essence of what the FSF calls copyleft, and what CC calls share-alike. Both allow non-free derivatives of some kind, the CC share-alike even more so than the GPL or LGPL. At least that's how I understand things, and it's good that way, but then IANAL. Of course, in many jurisdictions, the data you or I added to OSM is probably not even protectable in any way, if what I heard is correct. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license for business: meh
Frederik Ramm schrieb: And as for me being a key player - I am writing a lot on the lists, I am mapping a bit, I have written some software, and I am on the data working group. Actually, the good thing of making in some way a job out of your hobby enables you to do that. And for me, as just some community member, the mere fact that you can make a job out of this hobby convinces me that it's a good thing. Not because people like you can earn money with it, but because it shows that this shows that what we are doing is really usable in the real world and not just some figment of our imagination. It doesn't make me nervous to have people like you around, it actually calms me down and ensures me of this being a useful project we are all helping with. But then, maybe I'm tainted because I've been living in the open source world for some years now and know how it really works - as a good collaboration between volunteers, business people and those volunteers who can convert it into making a living out of it. :) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
