Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:59:30PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT. In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did the work. So why should i grant special rights to the OSMF via the CT? A good point about the CC-BY-SA, CC0, PD, GPL or BSD is that everybody gets the same rights. Not so with the current relicensing. With stating that my contributions are PD/CC0 i grant everybody the same rights. The OSMF has stated that they going to delete my contributions as i refused to grant special rights to the OSMF. I couldn’t have said this better myself. I think I tried to make this point in the past, but clearly didn’t get the message across. No central organisation should be granted special rights. The grants are included because of a fear that things will change in the future, and that OSMF won’t be able to manage the change (not unbelievable, considering current circumstances). This is the same sort of fear that makes governments introduce excessive powers, and then come to abuse them. On the one hand, I would like to continue to contribute to OpenStreetMap as a free geodata project; on the other, I want no part in any organisation, nor to support an organisation, that seeks to obtain special powers over anybody else. Does this only sound suspicious for me? No. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Thanks Grant, I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe unclear: What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor terms mean: From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. As written down it seems opposite to the OSMF statutes and memorandum... Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. “commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 01:00:26PM +, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote: On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, […] this is no way different from GPL released software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html Reading the link it looks like a very different situation. It’s different. The FSF requires you assign copyright to them (for their projects), and promises that they will make it free software (so you have the rights given by the free software licence used) and on request they will grant you back the non‐exclusive rights to do whatever you see fit with the software. This makes it easier for them to enforce copyright because they are now the copyright holders. It also allows them to re‐license, but they have promised by contractual agreement to release the software with only a licence that gives the freedoms that the organisation is founded on (by explicitly stating them, not by stating “a free software licence” or similar). OSMF is asking you to grant them non‐exclusive rights, essentially to do as they see fit, but you remain the copyright holder (where there is any copyright). I’m unclear on how copyright can be enforced in this situation, but the CTs also include a grant to sue for infringement. The OSMF clearly are not using the CT for the same reasons the FSF require copyright assignment. To OSMF it seems to be largely a vehicle to prevent them from being able to change the licence. I of course meant “it seems to be largely a vehicle to allow them to change the licence”, d’oh! From reading the lists, and OSMF minutes, this is the impression I get. Copyright enforcement, while included in the CTs, is secondary. Much of the discussion has revolved around the need for the ability to re‐ license, although that may be because it is one of the most contested parts of the CTs. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be limited by it? No. I said I don’t think it is sufficient, a different thing entirely. I would actually prefer the licence choice to be more limited than “anything that meets the OKD”. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote: I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM I agree. doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. You are wrong in thinking that I am dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing the OKD would be a no-brainer. To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data. You think: OSM should not be limited by an external definition. OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting, You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a good idea for OSMF to reference it). I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software many, if any, favours. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote: I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting, you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that correct? I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that way. This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD. So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred from it being open to debate, and that the OKD would limit this)? I’m struggling to make sense of this. I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again: Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use, analyse, modify, and redistribute? If the answer is “no”, what does it mean? If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition satisfy the OKD? In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”? Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”? Where is it lacking? I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science Commons protocal for open access too? Anything else? I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is currently left undefined and open to interpretation. Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open Source Definition). In the real world “free software” gets mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you can’t do anything with it). If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is limiting to OSM. And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is needed. ;-) I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet: Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect? The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses. I will also add: When defining free software we refer to the free software definition. It does not limit or harm software that is intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?) If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big loopholes in the terms may be true. I agree to the CTs even less so than I did previously. Fear, uncertainty and what? Now you’re getting it! :) My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* definition should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should. Why leave it undefined? Is this another way of saying we leave it wide open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in future? If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree with that approach. Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged, and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage at the time. 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] Defining free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)
Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my thinking. On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote: Why leave it undefined? To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-) Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say “it’s the OKD, stupid!” :) To avoid *another* dependency on another project. As far as I am aware the text is licensed under CC by-sa, and should OKFN change course, or jump ship, OSM could always fork the definition. In general, I’m not averse to depending on organisations such as OKFN, the FSF, OSI, and Debian to host and maintain definitions. It’s very nice to be able to just point at them and just say “that’s how we define it” and move on, concentrating on our own projects real aims. To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and AGPL opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r. I’ve had people similarly tell me that, despite claiming they would not add further restrictions to future licences, the FSF did just that with GPL v3 because it restricts how software producers can package and distribute their products. Forget about the freedoms of end users! To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by self-identified time-wasters. Meh, they can waste their time. This is just one of those things where I would say we just pick a definition then move on. 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] Free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)
[I’ve followed up Francis’ post, but also quoted from another sub‐thread, because I think his post includes a response to that.] On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:17:50AM +, I wrote: If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:28:31AM +, Francis Davey wrote: Lastly: there's no such thing in English law as a legal definition in a contract. Contract construction is a matter of fact not law. You can import legal definitions expressly if you want (from a statute say) but there's no legal rules on what words mean. A rookie mistake of junior counsel is to cite authorities where a word X was given one meaning in support of its meaning, assuming this gives them a home run. It doesn't. Fine, but shouldn’t the parties to the contract at least agree what the terms mean, especially those that may be less obvious to another should there be any dispute? So, free and open may not be a very tightly defined expression. Like everything else it has fuzzy edges. Maybe too fuzzy. That doesn't make it unenforceable. If ODbL tried to use a commercial licence which was highly restrictive, that would violate the CT's. But it does give quite a bit of leeway. How much leeway it should give is not a legal, but a policy, question, which is not my area. I would be happier if it pointed to a definition of “free and open” that we can agree on akin to the Free Software Definition. I don’t believe it guarantees enough freedoms to the next person, but I would be happier if the Open Knowledge Definition were explicitly referred to: http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
In general, I think you completely miss the point. Wherever you might like me to go, I am part of the community, so are all of the other people who disagree with you. If a small number of people coming up with the CTs wants to ignore me and others for the sake of getting something out, then I don’t think they are acting in the best interests of the community. *I* can compromise to form something agreeable, can you/they? On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:54:08AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote: We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards the people than any central body, including OSMF. This is not how I see it. I think the balance needs to be towards the project as a whole, not towards the individual and his whims. […] I think it is obvious that the more you assert and the less you grant, the less you trust the community. I've been called a communist for this but I believe that in our project, it is necessary to drop the selfish thought of your contribution being your personal property that you need to assert rights over because you cannot trust the community to do the right thing with it. That’s really just a load of bollocks, and can be turned on its head. In fact, I swore I just said that the other way around. Oh yes, it’s in the bit of my email you quoted above! Anyway, the rights are granted to the OSMF, who on the face of it are acting on behalf of the community, but they are *not* the community. If we’re trusting the community, which, believe it or not, is something I wholly support, then there doesn’t need to be a broad rights grant, and there doesn’t need to be a relicensing clause, because if it ever again comes to the point that we need to change things like this, then the whole community can be called upon to decide, not some abitrary fraction of it, not based on whether they are still actively contributing (old contributors are still contributors). If you are not prepared to *give* your data to OSM - if you'd rather only *lend* your data so you can sit and watch how the project develops and withdraw your contribution should they take what you view to be a wrong step in the future - then maybe you aren't ready for a large, interconnected, collaborative project like this. I’m not prepared to give my data to OSM while it insists it needs these broad rights. I am prepared to give my data to OSM when I feel it will act within constraints. The permissions I grant to OSM are the same as the permissions I grant to anyone else when individually licensing, and they are given when certain conditions are met, like when individually licensing. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors, then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a change. It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible, and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again. If Creative Commons (to take the current licence) or ODC (to take the next one) suddenly turn evil, are unable to react to changes in the law, or produce a licence that you don't like, OSM(F) should be able to react to that in more than a token way. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was explicitly referenced. I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another party's definitions. They should be free to find their own. How do you find the OKD limiting? To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything. I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in dismissing it entirely. I’d like a common standard for open data. If the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that. Well, I would be, but in light of what I have just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia bit isn’t necessary in the CTs. It's not paranoia. It's a recognition that the task has been necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years. May be. Yes, back to the fear, I see. The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia. I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad “free and open licence” of the CTs. A good example of a very successful project that decided it was cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel. I don’t see how that affects this. The kernel developers (rather Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons. The above issues are completely irrelevant. I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only, and have always accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence. Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally unnecessary. But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once. Yay, more fear. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote: Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards the people than any central body, including OSMF. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his contribution is compatible with whatever the current license is. Or whatever licence takes its place should ⅔ of “active” contributors decide. 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote: On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote: About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike and attribution clauses. I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority of us in the project are open data, open source and free software advocates. To us 'Free' means libré gratis and 'open' is being able to get at the contents/source and spin one's own. If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on our terms. If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. 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] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. 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] [talk] New site about the license change
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases (including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section 4.4) I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible licence improvements without overstepping the mark. I can agree to something that is essentially an incremental upgrade, but not for an arbitrary licence switch. I have some trust (possibly baseless) that OKFN would incrementally improve the ODbL (even better if they formally state that they would only ever incrementally update the licence). However, the CTs “explicitly” give the option of a switch to an arbitrary free and open licence, which still gives the option of a licence that is fundamentally different. “Free and open”, as well as being a vague term that I doubt has any formal legal definition (please correct me if I’m wrong), does not magically make all such licences the same, as shown by the various incompatibilities between so‐called “free” or “open source” software licences. Now who exactly decides when to issue a later version of ODbL or what makes a license compatible isn't made explicit, but I think it is safe to say that an upgrade along that path would be possible with a lot less eyes watching than an upgrade under the upgrade per clause 3 of the CT! So, you advocate having two upgrade paths, including what you consider a more stealthy upgrade path, rather than just the one? I don’t see how that’s any better. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some new users will be shuned away while those existing users are allowed to contribute to the project. I think everyone should be treated fairly, regardless of whether some people signed up earlier than others. Occasionally I see somebody write something sensible, and this is one of those occasions. Yes, all users (contributors?) should be treated the same, regardless of when they joined. The OSMF, after member “vote”, is committed to putting up the new licence for community adoption. In doing this, it has confused itself with supporting the process and supporting the licence itself. It goes even further, not necessarily directly by OSMF members, but most likely influenced by it, to state such things as “we are changing the license”. I generally consider “adoption” as something done by choice, but this has apparently already been decided for the community. Requiring new users to sign up to the new CTs just adds bias to the adoption of the new licence. I see the ODbL (+DbCL) as an enhancement to the current situation (although I despise the CTs), but manipulating it so that it gets any advantage like this is just wrong. I’d like to see all mandatory “agreements” to the CTs so far to be disregarded, and mandatory agreement to the CTs be removed for new sign‐ups. All users may fairly be informed about the licensing options, and where they can indicate their preference. At this point we determine what the level of support for the licence+CT change is, and if and only if we have overall support for the licence+CT change we change the sign up terms to reflect it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to deal with CC 2.0 data imports? Proposal Dual licensing of data under odbl-1.0
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:28:05AM -0700, Kai Krueger wrote: There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk ) in the Contributor Terms Revision section: e.g. If you want to import data copyrighted by others or where they are exerting a copyright over data that you have derived by a method such as tracing, the copyright should be compatible with ODbL 1.0. You do not need to guarantee that the copyright will be compatible with future licenses as may be adopted under clause 4 below, but you should be aware that it may then be necessary to delete such Content. If exceptions can be made for imports then why not also do so for “normal” user contributions? I would go so far as asking why the relicensing clause needs to be there in the first place (again) given that exceptions are easily allowed, but since we are talking about compromises, I would gladly accept the option to opt out of the clause. In any case, if I host my data elsewhere, and then “import” it into OpenStreetMap, do I get around this, or am I just being too hopeful? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote: Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed? Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added): I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. *There is a very small amount*, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. There are two major contributions to my feelings on this: The minutes, and Mike Collinson’s very welcome update, where he says: “We are not at this point looking to making any major changes to the way the Contributor Terms, but of course cannot completely rule that out.” Ok, I should have said “little chance” instead of “no chance”, but I hope you will forgive me for feeling weary about it all. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being rolled out. I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned since the early days of the CTs that we ended up with after legal consultation¹. Simon ¹Archive trawling scheduled for Sunday -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. This is a change that cannot be sugar-coated. It is needed in order to ensure that if future changes become necessary they can be made. I'm sorry to be harsh but I think that concentrating on the risks of the new CTs rather than the risks they are meant to address shows a failure of perspective. I don’t think that’s harsh; I think it’s wrong. ;) I see advantages and disadvantages to the CTs, but I believe the disadvantages currently outweigh the advantages. I don't believe that a stoic or pollyannaish acceptance that the licence of OSM may gradually be rendered ineffective by change outside the project is morally superior to enabling the project to rise to future challenges. I’m also not intending that the CTs become something that allows OSM to be gradually rendered ineffective. From my side of this fake wall you have put up, I am indeed intending that they allow OSM to be effective, and continue to allow OSM to be effective, without over extending grants to a third party. If I could make it happen without even having to have a third party involved, I would. Unfortunately, I think it is also beyond possibility. And if people are worried that future changes will not be to their liking they need to get involved in the process more actively. I’m worried that proposed changes in the very near future aren’t to my liking. Am I not actively involved now? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it. Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 That poll is a bit misleading […] Just a point on that poll: I answered ability to accept ODbl imports is more important because: * The assumption was that “the ability to react to change and relicense is more important” requires a very liberal rights grant. I don’t think this is the case. * When discussing a free licence, I would like to see it interoperable with itself, even if OSM only accepted large imports on a case‐by‐case basis. The wording on that poll is also very biased towards the liberal rights grant, and doesn’t paint each option equally (if anything, giving the import option *more* weight). There were only 34 participants. It wasn’t a very good poll. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote: Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […] Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against if they haven't already. In another post[1] I asked if linking the contributor terms to the version of the OSMF could be done. Would it be a suitable safeguard? [1]: “Rights grants in the contributor terms”, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004207.html Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote: Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […] Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against if they haven't already. In another post[1] I asked if linking the contributor terms to the version of the OSMF could be done. Would it be a suitable safeguard? OSMF’s stated aims [1]: “Rights grants in the contributor terms”, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004207.html Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. These contributor terms define a large part of how the future direction of OSM may be determined. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Someone in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD and to what he likes. I think this is less realistic when many companies¹ either operate internationally or do business with other companies who operate internationally. If there is no single law, then we can just extract the changes again back in usa and put them back in no? Then it is a two way street. You could, but then you would make the situation confusing in jurisdictions that do respect rights on the data. Copyright and database right does not simply go away with the act of removing the work from the database and putting it back again. ¹I’m assuming business to make writing about it a little more succinct, but the “Someone” in Frederik’s post could really be anyone. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:40:23AM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and the managers. Copyright is typically used to restrict distribution. You can only distribute copyright materials with permission from the copyright holders (not counting exceptions to copyright). Copyleft explicity uses copyright to ensure that freedoms to use, copy and distribute a work are passed on to everyone who obtains the work. With copyleft, no further restrictions are added (apart from those that prevent you from restricting the rights of others to copy, use and redistribute the work). For Openstreetmap under the ODbL + DbCL licences: There may be copyright in the actual data, so the DbCL covers that. Where it is deemed that there is no copyright, that licence is effectively meaningless, but since there are no restrictions provided by copyright in the first place it doesn’t matter. (This licence does not attempt to reciprocate the freedoms, so is not copyleft.) There may be copyright in the compilation of the database, and in Europe there is database right, which restricts copying and distribution of databases (and parts of them). The ODbL covers these, and gives permission to use, copy and redistribute the database. Where compilations are not covered by copyright (are there any places?) the parts of the licence covering copyright are probably null, but then there was no copyright anyway so no restrictions on copying and distribution were there (from copyright) in the first place. Where there is no concept of database right, the database right parts of the ODbL are null, but then there were no restrictions from database rights in the first place. That would be copyleft (and “database left”). The ODbL goes further by using contract law to either enforce freedoms to use, copy and distribute in the same way as the “missing” copyright or database right would have allowed, or to add restrictions where there were none anyway, depending on how you see it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Rights grants in the contributor terms
The second clause grants “OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents. It has been debated that this is even necessary already, so I’m not going to start on that… What I would like to ask is can this be tied to the foundation’s stated aim? OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. That is, the grant only lasts so long as OSMF exists and has that aim, and does not have a conflicting aim. Is this useful? Would it help appease those concerned about the broad rights grant? What happens if OSMF is subsumed by another organisation (can it be?), or becomes an organisation, that explicitly has a commercial interest? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:04:01AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: So I don't think setting a minimum attribution level is a good idea, at least from a user freedom point of view. I agree. I mentioned a minimum attribution because others seem to want that. The LWG and/or OSMF only seem to be considering two options other than the explicitly named licences: Attribution, or attribution + share‐alike. I care much less about attribution than I do about the freedoms of users of OSM and derivatives. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:56:15PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license into the CT. I completely agree - if you want to add a clause requiring that future licenses be share alike you'll need to come up with a good definition of what that means, and once you do you're probably made it impossible to relicense. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. The best way to avoid such problems with a future licensing clause is not to have such a clause at all, or stick to explicitly named licences. If share‐alike needs to be defined, then so does “free and open”, because many people have different ideas of what that means, and we haven’t referred to any standard definition. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do, or we can do the license change now and make future license changes simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities. OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database that is covered by the ODbL. There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs: There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself. With the CTs, explicit distribution under the terms of CC by-sa 2.0 is given (for compatibility). This licence also includes a form of upgradability. I think the above upgradability makes the clause in the CTs unnecessary, but I am willing to compromise: I suggest at least some minimum attribution and share alike provisions (although I personally care less about attribution), mirroring those provided by the ODbL: * Attribution of the direct source of the data set. That is, no requirement for attribution chaining, no requirement for attributing every single content contribution. * Share alike on datasets. I agree that extending share alike to things like rendered maps, routes from route planners, etc (produced works in ODbL terminology) are outside the scope for share alike. (Well, I agree with the ODbL, just not the CTs.) Remember that “share alike” generally only means the reciprocality applies when the work is distributed to another entity but you may want to explicitly state this too. If we leave out a relicensing provision entirely, the future OSM community will have to do this all over again. See above, the licences have upgradability. All of it. Not just casting about for the new license and convincing the majority of the community that the new license is right, but also the figuring out what to do about the data touched by those who disagree. Eliminating that last point seems like a worthy improvement to make to the process. I think it is unnecessary to completely eliminate it. Future license changes will still be hard. Flexibility vs clear licence guarantee. I think there should be some compromise at some point, a minimum level to be set that says “beyond this point we will either have to fork¹, or gain more complete cooperation of the community, not just 2/3rds of it. Before you repeat statements about the policies of the GNU project and the Apache Software Foundation, I can’t say I completely agree with their methods either, and thus have not contributed anything more than small patches to them (although I do support the stated aims of the FSF). ¹So if OSMF desperately wanted to remove minimum attribution and share alike without complete cooperation, they might be expected to continue supporting the existing project. We choose LGPL for one project and AfferoGPL for another. Use of the LGPL is discouraged by the FSF[1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html But we don't choose the license before we know the context. If we don’t know the context now, why are we changing the licence? It sounds to me like OSMF and LWG are scared that they haven’t made the right decision. This doesn’t instill a lot of confidence in them. I would like to see some certainty from them. I'm surprised that some in the community believe that they know the context facing the future community better than the future community will know it when they see it. Above, I allow for changing the licence, but ensuring some minimum requirements are met. This is a safety net, not a push back. I'm disappointed that some fingers are pointed at OSMF and LWG as not worthy of trusting with a future license change. See above: I’m not filled with confidence about their decisions. Partly that is disappointing because OSMF and LWG could be any one of you. I’m a member of OSMF, and I have been voicing my opinions, and supporting those of others. [More trust blather] OSMF doesn’t trust the contributors (some rightly so). It goes both ways. But there will be future license changes. Even if they are minor version changes to ODbL v1.1 there will be changes. Upgrade clause is in ODbL 1.0, see above. GPL is on version 3[2]. Licence does not include upgrade clause, but the recommended “copyright statement” suggests including one. People can choose not to. (My standard blurb was version 2 only until I had chance to review the final v3 licence and be happy with it. Now my blurb covers v2 or v3 without any “or later”.) The FSF also gives promises about the terms in future versions of the GPL (although even from v2 to v3 people disputed that the FSF went by their own promises). CC-By is on version 3[3]. CC-By and family include upgradability in the terms. We know that future licenses will change because the world is changing. That is why it is important to
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database that is covered by the ODbL. I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can you give examples for using and distributing individual contents that way? Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any, because the extraction from the database is covered by the rights on the database. It is theoretically possible that your extraction is not substantial: You could have a way of taking the data for an “item” and inserting its data into a blog. It may be contained in your blog’s database, you might add a couple of extra attributes for your blog, but still not be required to distribute any part of your blog’s database, including the modified item. If we assumed there were rights in this extraction (e.g. sweat of the brow, involving some decision about how to map it, or artistic), then the licence on the content comes into play and you should also abide by those terms. If the licence were stronger than DbCL, for example including attribution and/or share alike, you may be required to list the contributors and/or also provide access to a suitable “source” form (e.g. OSM format) of the data. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and above the necessary minimum just because a few of us think so. I’d like to see the length of copyright (and database right) terms reduced too! Can we encourage our respective governments to do that, and at least put all geodata providers on the same playing field (if not also for other works)? Another suggestion then, if you would like not to force our will on “OSM in 10 years”: Instead of leaving it open to any free licence, how about we set set the minimum attribution and share alike provisions and say that it will be subject to review in X years? (Five?) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:20:18AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote: I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can you give examples for using and distributing individual contents that way? Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any, because the extraction from the database is covered by the rights on the database. If the database right holder (OSMF) provides an exported extract of the database, does the use and distribution of that extract by others still come under database rights (and the ODbL)? My thinking is the rights probably still apply, because the rights cover an arrangement of the data, not dependent on the arrangement provided (the internal database format, a direct dump from the database, or in OSM planet format). If that’s the case, I wouldn’t mind seeing a statement to the effect that the database rights either will not be enforced on the CC by-sa dumps or outline some permissions mirroring the CC by-sa copyright licence (because CC by-sa covers only copyright, so database rights remain with… someone). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap. I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too many conflicting goals. If OSM/OSM-F's future really is with PD then fine say so, if it should stay BY-SA then fine say so, but this wishy washiness of trying to appease PD and SA groups isn't going anywhere. During early stages “public domain” was rejected. Skimming through the OSMF board meeting minutes, I can trace this back to January 2008: “3. OSM Data License - Richard provided an update on the current situation. Creative Commons, through their Science Commons initiative have published their protocol on open data at (http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/). The protocol places science data in the public domain and there is no attribution or share alike component. As such it is not therefore thought that OSM contributors would sign up to this approach should it be adopted by OSM. It was agreed that further consideration of the Open Data License would be investigated and Richard tasked with contacting Jordan Hatcher, one of its authors to further discuss.” Source: http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/9/99/20080117_meeting_minutes.pdf I agree with John that we should choose the route and stick to it. I thought the above was to be the route, and one which I agreed with, and the ODbL satisfied that for me. Most of the ambiguity and conflict is in the Contributor Terms, and has been pointed out (many times, to much annoyance) already. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and duration of IP protection
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you *will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current than OSM and has less restrictions. Nobody will be interested in x-year-old lapsed OSM data then. So I think this problem is of theoretical nature. I’m glad you say “most”, because we do (or did, at least before OS OpenData sources became available) have a habit of jumping on old Ordnance Survey maps in the UK because the data they represent is still useful. There are also a number of people in the community interested in historical mapping, so who is to say someone will not find x-year-old OSM data useful? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only, have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you suggest that they should not have a choice? Not arguing against people having a choice, but I do think that, whether or not the license change happens, people should be able to get all of the old data, including history, under the terms of the existing CC-by-sa license. If the OSMF Board were to decide, okay, that's it. All the data is relicensed without asking contributors, is that in line with their mandate to assist OpenStreetMap but not control it? They can’t do this: It’s legally dubious (although can possibly be worked around), and it’s morally wrong (you can’t just relicense somebody else’s (yours) data without getting permission). That’s why the intention is to ask everyone to agree to the new license and contributor terms. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France, where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your rights. For what it’s worth, you can’t actually remove moral rights in the UK either, even though the license requires that you waive them. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they didn't sign for it. I would be amazed that such a loophole exists in the first place. To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are one-sided contracts. I don’t believe they are a good example… Some countries do not accept that they have any validity, others do. …for this very reason. Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid if signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement. This is my (basic) understanding of a contract: It involves two (at least) parties agreeing, not just passively. So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no contract when i pick it up and use it, but any copyright it has is preserved. Makes sense. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Why do we need contract law at all? I know some reason why people think we need it: Because database rights are drastically different to non‐existent across different jurisdictions, so we feel the need to “balance” it out by enforcing the same for everyone using contract law. I don’t agree with it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote: For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I propose the following. Each data object (either a node, way or relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will agree to relicense our data as ODbL, if all other authors agree to release their data as PD. The current contributor terms[1] state that “data objects” or the contents of the database will have the Database Content License (DbCL)[2] applied to them. I’m not pro‐PD while overly long copyright (and database right) periods exist (I’d rather see short copyright terms for all, so everything becomes PD after a reasonable amount of time), but the DbCL appears PD‐friendly in the face of copy/database rights in a similar vein to the WTFPL (Do What The Fuck you want to Public License). Individual PD‐like agreement would not have an effect on extraction from the database as a whole, which is what ODbL applies to. [1]: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2]: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1-0/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote: just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote: The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project is to fork it. How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can fork it? That works too. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote: I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more than obvious I'm bucking the trend... Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so vocal… ;) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:14:46PM +1000, John Smith wrote: And that's where the fear comes in, just because you may have good intentions doesn't mean that it won't harm my goals. Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please everyone. If you care that much, why not campaign with reasons against the license change, and encourage lots of OSMers to disagree with it. If you’re lucky you might get enough support to halt the process. With all of your talk about majorities, surely this would be the way to change things, and not just a thread of whining and fear about the loss of imported data on the list. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about rights to data are vastly different that contract law is needed to balance it out—it’s apparently unfair otherwise. I don’t really believe that. Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also: * Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks) I didn’t realise it was that short a time period. :/ Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:08:07AM +1000, John Smith wrote: At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't and ODBL still goes ahead then I'll be forced to fork. I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put to contributors. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Notice the absence of any or later clause here. This means that if ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we would have to go through the whole 2/3 of active members have to accept poll to upgrade. I don’t see the issue with this. A new ODbL could quite drastically change the way it works. Don’t be fooled by a point release—people can version things in any way they please. I’m a little biased: I think that the contributor terms for possible future license changes are unnecessary, and that OSM should seek permission from all rights holders for any license change. Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in my opinion. It comes back to the fear of losing stuff that if the rights holders don’t really agree OSM has no rights to anyway. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote: - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let develop such a tool. I’m still struggling with how to get such statistics without first getting an opinion—the catch‐22 I referred to earlier but John seemed to brush off without actually thinking about it. I’m in favour of a non‐binding straw poll to all OSM accounts before a “final” agree/disagree thing. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 01:36:09AM +0100, I wrote: Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in my opinion. The project needs to understand the consequences of a license change, this one or any future one, and accept that it may well not be able to apply a different license to some existing data. It should get over the fear of “losing” data. If a user doesn’t agree to a new license, then tough, their data can’t be distributed per that license. None of this “ooh we’re scared so we’ll make people agree to allow relicensing in the contributor terms”. For a project about open data, we seem to be getting awfully hung up on keeping a tight hold on the data rather than actually making it open. Note: I’m a copyleft fan: I think the the data being free (freedom, not necessarily “free of charge”) and remains free is much more important than any attribution. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Number of active contributors
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote: Interesting. That is a lower figure than I personally was envisioning when we made the above definition, and therefore potentially disenfranchising of genuine OSM community. Perhaps we should review it, 3 calendar months in the last 12 perhaps?? Comments welcome. I have previously expressed my opinion that the definition was too narrow, and seeing the statistics has strengthened that. I preferred scrapping the “activeness” check entirely (and still do), but later suggested 18 months. I don’t think the requirement should necessarilly be that those contributions be evenly spread out. E.g. months 1-3 of 18 should be acceptable. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote: any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active contributors. I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I actually think it should be scrapped completely, because it doesn’t matter whether somebody isn’t active any more. If I let OSM have my data to be used under a particular licence (or variant of), then that’s what I do. If I believe in share-alike type stuff (which I do), I do not generally wish to exempt an organisation from it (I may exempt someone, but there have to be special circumstances that I feel warrant this). I will not contribute further to OSM (directly) under such broad terms, because I do not believe it is right. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's why, while desirable, it is not practical to give them a say. Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and if I don't react then that counts as an abstain vote. At the very least, I expect the period to be much longer than 6 months. My arbitrary acceptable number data just suggested 18 months. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ---End Message--- signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:24:47PM +, 80n wrote: Any share-however-you-like license has the properties you describe. We're talking about share-alike here. It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is about. Share-alike is really about the next user, anyone who receives the work, having the same freedoms. The next user is not necessarily the original project (e.g. OpenStreetMap), but the original project can still benefit. Any licence that would require contribution back to the original project fails to give those freedoms to people with limited connectivity, sometimes even completely segregated from the Internet as we know it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:33:44PM +, Rob Myers wrote: back, and that having changed licences once it's important that OSM be able to change/upgrade/whatever the licence in the future I believe the contributor terms are too broad. I answered the poll in favour of moving to the ODbL, but failed to take into account the contributor terms. The upgrade clause in the ODbL should be sufficient for any future licensing, and if the change is away from that, I expect as a contributor to be consulted about it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote: any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active contributors. if you want to be consulted about any future licensing change, just join OSMF or continue to actively contribute to OSM. I’m a member of OSMF. I think the terms are still too broad. Why is it mega opt in to effectively giving OSMF complete control? It doesn’t need to be, and We already say “you can use our stuff under X licence”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote: any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active contributors. I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I actually think it should be scrapped completely, because it doesn’t matter whether somebody isn’t active any more. If I let OSM have my data to be used under a particular licence (or variant of), then that’s what I do. If I believe in share-alike type stuff (which I do), I do not generally wish to exempt an organisation from it (I may exempt someone, but there have to be special circumstances that I feel warrant this). I will not contribute further to OSM (directly) under such broad terms, because I do not believe it is right. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's why, while desirable, it is not practical to give them a say. Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and if I don't react then that counts as an abstain vote. At the very least, I expect the period to be much longer than 6 months. My arbitrary acceptable number data just suggested 18 months. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's why, while desirable, it is not practical to give them a say. No one organisation should need to have the advantage of effectively all rights to the data. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and if I don't react then that counts as an abstain vote. Oh, and there should most definitely be more than one attempt at making contact. I assumed it went without saying. I must remember not to make too many of these assumptions. :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSMF license change vote has started
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:09:30PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote: I believe there was a discussion that viral does necessarily mean reciprocal, hence the use of the word. I'll check tomorrow if no one else comes back. If you get down to various meanings already documented in English, neither “viral” nor “reciprocal” are perfect fits. I agree that “share alike” is also a good alternative. “viral”, although it does not necessarily mean something bad (infectious smile :) ), it has bad connotations which are just used to bring licenses such as the GPL into bad light. Software under the GPL license does not inject itself into other software and automatically make the result licensed under the GPL, contrary to some belief. “reciprocal” is better, but the mutuality of reciprocation isn’t quite provided by share alike licenses: Share alike says: “I give you this, and allow you to do stuff with it, on the condition that if you give it to someone else, you also allow them to do all this stuff.” It does not necessarily mean that you have to give it back. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSMF license change vote has started
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:43:09AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: but while we’re trying to prevent all sides equally Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with all our hearts ;-) Yes, thanks for that. I noticed not long after I sent the mail, but didn’t think it was worth the (in my case what would have been corrective) comment. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:30:01PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: If you have enough room then we prefer the URLs for OSM and CC written out. There is some info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F Now that we have it, can osm.org be used as an alternative? I.e. prefer full expanded URIs/domains, but if space is too limited you can use osm.org instead of www.openstreetmap.org, and if it’s still too much you might then omit the URIs completely. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
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. As a commercial user, I am very interested in having the same set of rules binding my competitors in every country. As a user, commercial or non‐commercial, I would prefer the same set of rights for both proprietary and free works, and for OSM not just to effectively waive those rights because we believe we have a database of simple facts and that simple facts should not be copyrightable (as I said, others don’t believe it and are willing to fight for their supposed rights). Countries with economies so negligible that they don't subscribe to international IP law are of little interest to me in that regard (I am unlikely to face competition from companies in North Korea et al.), but if some kind of loophole would permit rogue US companies to use OSM data free of any restrictions while I, in Europe, am bound by them would be unsatisfactory. Sticking to a form of share‐alike for the database contents would tighten the loophole where it is believed there are some rights to the contents, but would not completely get rid of it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39:01AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is better than a random assortment of may, might, the project consensus seems to be that..., i am not a lawyer but..., depending on your jurisdiction, and depending on the judge's interpreation. As I said, the terms do need to be more well defined, and defined the same for everyone rather than relying solely on definitions in different laws. It’s an unfortunate fact that the licence will have a different interpretation over the world whatever we do, but we can at least try to solve the issues that we see rather than just giving up. I would very much like to avoid a situation in which an uncertainty in the interpretation of the license makes user A refrain from doing something (because he thinks it might be against the license) whereas user B brazenly does the same thing and gains some kind of advantage by doing it, and then A starts complaining to us. Definitions of a Derived Database, Collective Database, Produced Work and others are things we can make more clear to avoid uncertainty. “Depending on jurisdiction” differences will be unavoidable. The best we can do is make it clear what is intended. It does come back to my comment about enforcing rights if they exist: If there are fewer or no copyright like rights in a jurisdiction, then everyone in that jurisdiction is playing on the same pitch, and I feel they have more freedom anyway. If there are rights, we enforce them to keep the data free in a jurisdicition that would allow another to keep data proprietary. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:26:14PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all? Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version? 1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than C-By-SA So far that is one thing that is subject to debate. Unless the produced works and derivative databases thing is sorted, if it’s better than CC-by-sa, it’s not by much, and certainly not enough to warrant the licence change. 2) Because it's not clear that we'll understand ODbL any time soon well enough to fix any problems. If we don’t understand it we shouldn’t use it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:30:33PM +1100, Liz wrote: 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. Mailing lists are much more international friendly methods of communication. What is it you (SteveC, Nick, etc) excpect to get out of the telephone conference that can’t be facilitated on the list? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and T+Cs
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:15:23PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts Cs, for example. So has CloudMade; they say that you may access their site solely for your personal use. It is an interesting twist of share-alike; you cannot, of course, say that the map tile you are serving is for personal use because that would violate the license. But it seems that you can restrict the way in which you deliver it This is the same for software with the GPL: You may distribute GPL software only to people who supply you with beer, but when you do that, you give them the right to have the same access to the source code, and to use, modify, and redistribute to anyone they choose under the same terms. You don’t automatically have to distribute the general public just because you gave the software to your friend. The interesting question is, can I use this power to restrict how people use my tiles? Can I say this is an open server that anyone can access, but if you plan to use the tile for a satanic ritual after you have accessed the server, then you do not have permission to access my site? Oh yes I cannot disallow that you use the tile for a satanic ritual but I can disallow that you use my site to access it... and by the way I also disallow anyone to access my site with the plan of giving the tile to you so don't you think of asking your friend. You could just disallow everyone :) I don’t know the answer to this, but I suspect you could do all of this. I also suspect that “plan” won’t stand up very well, since I might want to use your tiles for my own purposes without planning to distribute to someone else. Assuming the licence is actually free, once I have received the tiles, if a friend asks for a copy, I should still then be free to give them a copy and the freedom to use under the terms of the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on?the?signup page.
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:00AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of it. Some day I die. Should I take my OSM data with me, or try to re-activate my e-mail account pretty soon then? Yes and no. You could change that by giving licence to OSM to do whatever they wish with your data after your death. Have you written your will yet? :) Or, you could indicate that you allow your data to be licensed as the OSM community sees fit now. This is really your choice, and not something to be forced by the licence. Much more idealistically, copyright and database right terms would be reduced and measured from the date of publication. Every work becomes public domain in a reasonable amount of time, and everyone gets to make use of it, regardless of whether the authors disappear. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:08:58AM +, Peter Miller wrote: 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. This sounds like brushing the issue aside, putting it in the neverending inbox to deal with “at some point”. I’d prefer people carry on discussing issues, here _and_ on the wiki, and in the comments of the licence draft. The more the issues are recognised, the better the chance of having them dealt with. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:40:47PM +0100, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote: * Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the world. While I agree to collective attribution, I share some of this sentiment. It may just be ego, but I like to be credited for the work I have done. It gives a sense of purpose, and something I can take pride in. Thankfully I don’t think this will disappear just because of this section of the ODbL. User data is stored in OSM, and as far as I know there has not been any suggestion of removing it. If all identifying data was removed, it may actually hurt OSM because it would be harder to track down and deal with breaches of others’ rights. There is one thing in moral rights that I don’t feel should be waived where it is applicable: The right not to be falsely attributed for something. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: this could mean that anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any snapshot time where someone cares to request it. So be it. Do you have any suggestion on how to achieve this technically? For such a large amount of data, not much if you actually had to redistribute the entire data yourself, but see below. ODbL already defines derivatives, produced works and collective databases separately, and is much more permissive for the latter two. Distribute a derived database, share it please. This is not about the distribution of a derived database; if I already have the database in a form that can be distributed, then sharing it is trivial. My question is about the distribution of a Produced Work and whether or not the underlying derived database needs to be made available even if it does not have any value added. Then you you have more than one thing here: * A derivative database, consisting of the original database imported into PostGIS. * A produced work, consisting of the derivative database and other elements. To make the exampe clear: http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/7/63/42.png would, under the new license, be a Produced Work. It is based on nothing more than is available at planet.openstreetmap.org, imported into a PostGIS database which is updated once a minute. […] our own tile server would have to be scaled back to once-a-day updates because we could not possibly produce the PostGIS dumps once an hour. If your tileserver also provides the ability to directly query the derivative database, then I think you should be obliged to distribute the database. If you just have a tile browser, then probably not. It gets more difficult when you start providing things like place name searching: Is that still acceptably a produced work, or are you providing access to the database? I would err towards providing the database. If you do have to offer the derived database, you may not have to worry about providing frequent dumps. The licence specifically allows for distributing the whole database, or simply a file containing the alterations made. It doesn’t say how the differences should be encoded, so I think it’s reasonable to document that you used osm2pgsql, osmosis, or other, and exactly how you used it (command line arguments, inputs, etc). Richard has already commented on the relevant this part of the license (4.6(b))[1]. [1]: http://www.co-ment.net/text/844/ This does bring up some other questions though: What if the software doesn’t produce predictable results each time it is run? This could possibly be solved by extending the software to produce a trace of operations that it or another tool could process to perform exactly the same transformation of the database. This could become quite large though, so we’re back to distributing large amounts of data with frequent updates. In case you used an old version of the software that may no longer be distributed by the authors but could produce different results, should you provide the exact software you used? Can you just specify how you import the original database, and how each diff is imported, or do you have to document the whole process of importing and provding minutely updates? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you waive all right to ownership of your edits. This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of it. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:42:57PM -0500, John Wilbanks wrote: I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current official CC policy on CC licenses and databases - indeed, on any legal tools other than PD for databases - is the science commons protocol on open access to data, which calls for the PD position only. This position comes from a goal of promoting interoperability across domains of data. We started out endorsing the use of CC licenses on the copyrightable elements of databases but not the data itself. After about three years of research we decided that was a really Bad Thing if what we wanted was data integration. Interoperability of data would be nice, but as far as I am concerned it’s not a primary aim unless the interoperability is with other similarly free (freedom) and licensed such that further redistribution is also free. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:58:04PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Having to grant access to pgsql data base --- In this use case we look at someone who does nothing more than taking OSM data and rearranging it according to fixed rules, e.g. by running it through osm2pgsql. The question we face is: Does this create a derived database to which access has to be granted because of the share-alike element of the license, or is it sufficient to say this is just the planet file run through osm2pgsql? The lawyer's answer is: Need clarification here. From my reading, this example would seem to constitute a Derivative Database under the ODbL. It’s a database, derived from the original. To me it’s a derived database. It does need clarifying to say just that. this could mean that anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any snapshot time where someone cares to request it. So be it. The problem with the old license, the problem we're trying to solve mainly, is that there were so many unresolved issues, that a strict reading of the license could bring down most services overnight and everyone depended on a relaxed reading. If things like the above are not made very very clear and leave any room for interpretation then the new license, again, has the potential to wreck many legitimate uses when read strictly. ODbL already defines derivatives, produced works and collective databases separately, and is much more permissive for the latter two. Distribute a derived database, share it please. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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 Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:00:58AM -0800, 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. OSMF wanted to modify it for OpenStreetMap. OSMF have lawyers looking at it, with a view to ironing out legal issues. Open Data Commons seem to have lost interest in it. Communications with Jordan have apparently broken down. I think it’s high time OSMF took a bit more control. Hopefully, the licence itself is freely modifiable and distributable (I don’t know, and can’t see any reference). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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 Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:07:38PM +, Rob Myers wrote: By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts for review, I don't understand what an open development process for a legal document would look like if not iterated drafting and comment. There should be another round of comment on the licence, no matter how fed up everyone is with the process, but not any kind of exercise in legal crowdsourcing or radical democracy. I don’t envisage a free‐for‐all as a necessity for open development. I’m more after seeing the licence as it is being developed, and being given the chance to comment on it throughout. This doesn’t mean I get to change it as I see fit. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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 Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 05:41:41AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: sward wrote: Communications with Jordan have apparently broken down. Mikel's e-mail of 15th Jan, which post-dates the minutes you're quoting from, said Jordan had been involved in a meeting with them the previous day, Quite right, this had escaped me while I was responding. This does point out a fairly major concern though: Should communications break down again, we’re almost back to square one, unless we can ensure that we will be able to work from, or sponsor someone else to work from, the current drafts of the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A really quick poll
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:33:14AM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote: I am really worried, when I see the chairman of the OSM Foundation making these kind of oversimplified statements Sounded like sarcasm making light of the situation to me. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Making OSM Public domain
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:17:44AM -, Peter Miller wrote: Thanks, a nice Use Case. I have just added it to the wiki so we can get a legal opinion on it. This Use Case makes it clear that the use of the public transport data must be protected … Personally I think public transport data should be, uh, public :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Making OSM Public domain
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: With mapping data, you don't need to worry about DRM. As the world moves to a net-based economy, commercial service providers will be able to restrict you from viewing / downloading their maps whole sale. /me awaits the Affero ODbL Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:43:17AM +0200, bvh wrote: That is not true. As long as you base your work solely on your own data, you are free to do with it as you seek. Even after having uploaded it under the proposed license. (Not taking into account how the licence sees it at all.) Not really, you have a database of OSM data, you have your data, you merge your data into your OSM database, that’s a derivative because it’s a database containing OSM data (also a derivative of the other data). You make pretty maps / routing / other from that. The case that works: You have a database of OSM data, you have your data. You don’t merge the datasets to create a new one, but your application that makes pretty maps / routing / other can take both as input. Not derivative. (Distribute both together, collective, but not derivative.) Of course, the latter is subject to some horrible ambiguities akin to the linking of programs in the GPL. Aren’t you creating a new derivative database in memory? That should probably be excluded, although… If you only ever distribute your work in memory, then you only ever have to provide the “source” in memory, which I don’t really see as much of an issue. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:36:08AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: Richard wrote: One thing I really love about OSM is the pragmatic, un-political approach: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create our own and you can shove it. (I don’t see Richard’s original email, so I’ll reply here.) OSM is hardly un-political, heck, making your work PD is a political statement in itself. You’re just in the PD party, that’s all. Not: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create a complex legal licensing framework that will ultimately get you bogged down … That’s enough, really. As unserious as Richard can be this is just trolling. If you have a problem with the share-alike, you’re doing something wrong, you’re bogging yourself down. If you have a problem using the data within the intent of the share-alike then that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle
I’m just going to pick up on one generalisation, and not really contribute that much to the actual topic, excuse me: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:25:09PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: … Almost as if to reinforce it, they capitalise the F in freedom; I don’t capitalise “free software”, or “freedom” or whatever terms other so‐called supporters of free software may mangle. I have argued against capitalising the terms: The gist is that it’s a marketing gimmick, and that’s not what free software is about; and capitalised words tend to indicate they take on some different meaning, but free software is about freedom, not this “Freedom” thing, whatever that is. Simon, your friendly (uncapitalised) free software advocate. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don’t relicense stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn’t because it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it’s PD, but can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote: Personally I'd be very happy to see the discussion of PD continue on the talk list but a mailing list seems a very minor resource compared to the time and effort that have gone into the creating the new license. I see the PD route as just giving up. “It’s too hard” is not a good answer for me. It’s clear that my opinion isn’t global though. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:17:35AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: I intended to have an overlay on my map which showed bus stops. This data would be collected from the local bus company. Under the old license, I couldn't use OSM because I couldn't share the overlay. It might not have been a problem - but I couldn't risk it. This got me wondering - what applications will never be written because of the OSM SA licensing? Just to make clear, I’m very much in agreement that CC-by-sa is unsuitable for OSM, and in favour of a new licence (ODbL, maybe) that will clear some of the use cases up. I’m just not about to stand down just because some people wanting to use the data in a particular way don’t want to abide by share-alike terms either. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst 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. My responses in this thread have been in response to Peter Miller’s clarifications for the brief brief of the requirements for the new licence (and successive messages putting various points across). I cannot comment on the new licence because I haven’t seen it. I have only the old draft to go on, but that’s a moot point because I was commenting on the brief. _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on what to look out for when the licence is released. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:05:23PM -0700, Mikel Maron wrote: If this were about code, the belief would be that every time someone compiled that code into running software, that binary would need to be freely available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for software. But you would have this for data? I’d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. Imagine you were in some place without Internet access and I gave you a DVD containing OSM data imported for use in some software (we’re not necessarily talking about free software, this could be proprietary). All you can do is use that software. You spot a couple of mistakes, and would like to change it. The software doesn’t let you do that, and this mere translated format is unknown to you, and most certainly not a preferred form for modification. Wouldn’t it be great if you had access to the OSM database that was imported? Thanks to some attribution you know where it is, but you don’t have Internet access. You should be able to request the source from your provider. If this were about code, and the code was GPL provided in binary form, the source would either be available on the same medium, or a written offer to provide the source on request. The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived database. (I really hope nobody goes around distributing such rubbish sounding proprietary software using OSM data to people in tight corners (this may be charged for, remember).) -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Dair Grant wrote: Simon Ward wrote: I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. ... The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived database. If you're obligated to provide the source to your translation, providing access to the translation itself seems pointless. Stop! I’m talking about someone who’s already providing a translation for whatever reason. They should provide the source to those they provide their work to as if it was a derived work. One reason for providing the translation in the first place is for convenience. Something that uses geodata expects a particular format that’s not OSM format, for example. One difference between OSM usage and free software is that a great many uses of OSM will be a one way process. Sure, it’s often a one way process, that’s why you would prefer the source be made available. What's left might be useful for reconstructing OSM in an emergency, but the planet dump that went into the process would be much more helpful. Which you may not have access to, and whoever distributed the derived DB to you should be obligated to provide. If the data is just a translation from OSM (or some data literally derived from it, like a precalculated routing table/simplified graph/etc) then making that accessible is pointless. Only in the simple scenario that OSM will always be available to provide the source. You can’t guarantee that. The one way you can do that is to get the distributor to also distribute their source. You have contact with them, otherwise you wouldn’t have been able to get the derived work, and they can get you the source, otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to derive from it. If that can't be done then, yes, those changes should be published in a form that could be used by OSM. 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. You take the data. You distribute it (modified or not). There shouldn’t have to be a requirement to explicitly contribute back to OSM, but you should be obligated to provide the preferred form for modification and reuse (that is most likely the OSM format DB dump in OSM’s case). That way anybody who has access to your modified work gets the freedoms to examine, use, modify and redistribute it themselves. In many cases this would mean the work is available to be incorporated into OSM, but if the user is on the desert island, they still have freedoms given. The problem is primarily to do with having data people are free to use, and not necessarily getting contributions back into OSM itself. I don't see that necessarily has to be via the translated database though. A j.osm patch, or a modified planet file, would be easier to create and easier to merge in (if they turned out to be something we wanted). They should be obligated to provide the source, not necessarily their own translated format. Again you’re concentrating on explicitly contributing back to OSM which would be very nice, but not always directly possible or helpful to reuse of the data. If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation that you couldn't do better with the planet dump? Use it with the tools only written to use the translated format? Of course, if we assumed these were free too (clearly a wrong assumption) then the problem may not exist. Lacking fully free software or fully free data, one or the other existing is better than nothing. If the translation does improve the OSM data, but you get the source planet dump plus the improvements as a .osm file, requiring the translation itself be a public format seems excessive if the goal is to improve/protect OSM. My goal is free data. OSM is one way to achieve it, because that’s one of its aims (or I thought it was, am I wrong?), not the goal itself. The term “public” is being used far too much, and I think it should be avoided. I don’t require anything to be “public”, just that the people who receive the data get the same freedoms as those that they received it from. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived product accessible. Gah! If someone gives you a database of OSM data not in OSM’s original format, they have already provided it to you. The source[*] should be available so you are free to make your own modifications. ([*] I’m willing to allow that “source” could be a lossless and reversible translation of the original where both the translation and reverse processes are also freely available.) I guess the easiest way would then be to leave this to the user: *Either* make your derived product so accessible that someone can somehow extract data from it, *or* ship the original OSM data from which you made your derived product alongside the derived product - whatever is easier for you. That’s not a problem with free software. Why is it a problem with free data? (Or it is seen as a problem, but only by those who don’t value others’ freedoms.) ( ... this whole discussion is, once again, getting into the negative, with us discussing all sorts of evil uses that have to be safeguarded against by implementing measures that will be a burden to everyone, evil or not evil.) Our freedoms are very important, they should be safeguarded. They’re only a burden if you try to restrict the freedom of other users. You may not see it that way, or value your freedom as much as I value everyone’s freedoms. If that’s the case there’s not much point in you discussing further, since it sounds like you are trying to protect some assumed right to remove the freedoms already given. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:34:48AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: How will the potential user know whether the data you entered is just fact, or the result of a complex approximation that took you a day's work? The short answer is the user doesn’t; they treat the data as if it was to be shared and generally be nice people. They _could_ spend lots of money involving their lawyers to decide whether some small chunks of data that don’t amount to a sizable proportion of the database are usable and the licence does not apply, or they could comply with the licence. This isn’t different to how CC-by-sa is being taken to apply to the database _and_ contents (where people find it usable). CC-by-sa doesn’t make the distinctions we need for the data especially with respect to derived works. The factual share-alike licence should still make this clear, and is more in the spirit with the original licensing. Your argument would also suggest that there is no need for the factual licence. As far as I understand, it simply makes the data free where it has the power to do so. Where it doesn’t, it banks on the data being free to copy in that jurisdiction anyway. A share-alike licence would only be similar: Make the data free and and ensure that further redistribution is free where it has the power to do so. This comes down to PD vs permissive vs share-alike, and I’ve seen this be discussed to bits in the past. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:48:07AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: 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. Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available. 2) We clarify that when any derived Database should be made available in a 'reasonable' time period. This deals with the minutely update concern. “reasonable” is too variable. The derived database should be made available as the product using the data is. 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?] The key is being able to access the DB, if I understand the ODbL correctly. Of course, I could be very wrong. [Yes, preferrably, though publication of modified parts may be acceptable.] 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] Wording… :) I’ll pick up on “generally available” since that implies “public” when it should be possible for someone to use the data, and derive from it, without ever releasing it to anybody else. I’d comment on “in a form designed to allow it to be conveniently processed by a computer” too but I suspect that’s where you mainly thought the wording wasn’t good (and I agree). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:26:05AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: I can think of three types of material changes that we would want contributed back to OSM: [1] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the accuracy of a Feature geometry. [2] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the topology of a Feature geometry. [3] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the quality of the Feature Tags (attributes) of a Feature. There are two other types of changes that would seem less critical to contribute back: [4] Modifications that add Feature Tags (attributes) to a Feature. [5] Modifications that add Features. It seems like #4 and #5 may be the type of modifications that make a derived database? Dair wrote: What I would like to come back would be any improvements they made to the OSM data; either by merging it with another database, correcting the OSM data, etc. I would think that this complies with the spirit of the OSM license, correct? I don't care if you are adding some useless bit of proprietary information as a feature tag. However, if you are making more accurate feature geometries, I would be interested in that. I’m told distinguishing between factual information with rights and that without is hard. Distinguishing between derived works that may improve the data and derived works that don’t sounds even harder. I think it’s better not to attempt to and just make the derived works available to those you distribute your product to. All of the discussion is very OSM centric at the moment. Granted, it is about a new licence for OSM, but we shouldn’t try to tie it specifically to OSM. If, for whatever reason, OSM itself becomes unavailable, or someone somewhere does not have access to it, but they have access to a derived work, should they be denied access to the data that makes this usable just because it may be of lower quality? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question on derived datasets - old license and proposed license...
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 06:20:32PM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: I cannot speak for everyone, but I do think that the general idea is to make the ODbL work like a copyleft license (i.e. you're required to distribute the source data only to the people you distribute the maps to). You'll have to wait for the final, revised version to be sure. I’d rather not wait for a less than acceptable licence. I’d like to sort out any problems beforehand. For me, allowing my contributions to be distributed without a share-alike is going to take some pretty damn good convincing. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:09:09AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available. Either I am misreading half of what you say, or you are concerned very little about the usability of OpenStreetMap after the license change. You’re mis‐reading. OSM data will still be as usable. More so, people will derive from it, will translate it, and those forms will also be usable. Nothing except someone’s inability to agree to sharing makes this any less usable. We're drifting towards a system where people update their mirrors every minute (OSMXAPI is a good example here). It is simply not possible to offer (a) a *current* database dump from OSMXAPI to anyone who requests it at any time, or (b) direct read access to the OSMXAPI database to anyone except what the API provides. [Going out on a limb with (b) as I don't know the internals of OSMXAPI but if it were PostGIS based then (b) would certainly hold.] I concede on a previous point I made about data being made immediately accessible vs accessible in reasonable time, but I don’t believe the PostGIS database in this example should not be free. Maybe the requirement should be that a dump (from the last n days, or last change before then) be made available on request? If I combine your statement above with “reasonable” is too variable. The derived database should be made available as the product using the data is. Then this means basically that OSMXAPI would have to shut down, and our own Mapnik tileserver would probably never get beyond importing one planet file per day because every planet file import would mean, at the same time, that a PostGIS dump has to be made available and this might simply take too long to be usable. Yeah, see above. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 01:37:19AM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: I believe many contributions would deserve some protection in their own right, they’re not simply “facts”. How will this be handled? Well, my point of view is that individual bits of OSM data are indeed facts. Could you ellaborate some use case where some piece of OSM data would require some protection on its own? Almost anything where you have had to work something out. Extrapolation of the path of a way from your GPS traces or photos. Maybe you didn’t survey the river you know runs parallel to a road but made an “educated guess” to where it should be. Those examples are all (varyingly) more than just simple facts (and in some cases could be seen to be complete works of fiction). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] US local government data: negotiating license?
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:57:08PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I had the same thoughts when reading the text, but later it says that the data can be used by anyone for any purpose as long as they comply with attribution and sharing requirements, and with that proviso I think it is ok (and true!) to say that OSM is a non-commercial project. OSM might be considered non‐commercial, but what about companies who use OSM? A licence to use data in a non‐commercial project is not necessarily one that allows distribution to others (commercial or not). This means such data can’t realistically be incorporated into OSM, but since non‐commercial organisations can use OSM they should have no problems also using both OSM data and this trail data together (barring OSM’s own licence ugliness). Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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?
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. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
