[OSM-legal-talk] proprietary data formats and ODbL
I've been talking to a navigation device maker who want to make OSM maps available to their customers when OSM switches to ODbL. Their devices use a special data format that they can't or don't want to disclose. I think their map would be a Derivative Database under ODbL (it is routable, so it's not a produced work), so my understanding is they can make this file available under ODbL as long as there are no technological measures that restrict the rights granted under the license. The file is not encrypted and they don't use any DRM, but of course the map can only be used on their type of devices (just as a gmapsupp.img can only be used on Garmins), and of course without a specification of the file format it's going to be very difficult to make any changes to it. Any other views on this? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and source = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
Am 02.10.2010 14:36, schrieb Valent Turkovic: Here is his answer: Those countries have their own geogrphical or geodesist institutes. So: the VGI is selling those OLD prints and they have still an copyright on reproduction of those papers, BUT NOT THE CONTAINED DATA !!! The fact that the new countries have institutes that create their own maps has nothing to do with the copyright on existing VGI map data. (Map making is not exclusively a government task, as anyone working on OSM should know.) There are only two possibilites: Either VGI still owns the rights to the maps they created, or the rights were transferred to the new countries. In either case, you cannot use the data without permission. I agree that it is a grey zone, but who will say that its illegal? OSM doesn't accept data from grey zones ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OpenAddresses.org CC3.0
Kate Chapman schrieb: I saw that http://www.openaddresses.org/ is using http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ does that work with CCBYSA 2.0? You can migrate from CC-BY-SA 2.0 to CC-BY-SA 3.0, but not to CC-BY 3.0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Thus we have agreed that we are willing to consider a PNG file to be a Produced Work unless - and I don't find the specific wording on the Wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
80n schrieb: CC-BY-SA doesn't require contribution back but it does *permit* contribution back. That's an important distinction. We're currently working on the assuption that you can comply with CC-BY-SA by giving attribution to the OpenStreetMap contributors. That assumption is no longer true when importing CC-BY-SA licensed data from other sources. Then what? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
80n schrieb: Attribution is dealt with by entries on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution I suppose that's ok for OSMF itself. But if someone wants to use an OSM map in a book or a flyer, are they expected to include that wiki page? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence termination
David Groom schrieb: The first time I access the database [definition (1)] then, for as long as the database is directly accessible, am I not being granted a right to continue to access it under the terms existing when I first accessed it? No, the license gives you the right to Use the Database, where Use is defined as doing any act that is restricted by copyright or Database Rights whether in the original medium or any other; and includes without limitation distributing, copying, publicly performing, publicly displaying, and preparing derivative works of the Database, as well as modifying the Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format. This is an intellectual property rights license and does not deal with access to the website at all. Also see Section 9.5: Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Database under different license terms or to stop distributing or making available the Database. Releasing the Database under different license terms or stopping the distribution of the Database will not withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above. All I can deduce from your point, is that when the ODbL is read in conjunction with a document that is currently being worked on, than the meaning of the ODbL might be clearer. Actually I think the ODbL is as clear as any license in that respect. You're asking about something that is not part of a license. As I wrote, the website terms of use would be the document to look at for details about access to the website, but even if there is no such document that doesn't mean you're granted any particular rights to continue accessing it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
James Livingston schrieb: Something I just thought of that would probably be worth talking about - how does the active contributor for voting, and other things, work if (unfortunately) the project forks? The forked project would be able to use the regular ODbL upgrade path (a later version of the ODbL or a compatible license), but not to vote for a different license. This is similar to the situation with other open projects, for example the FSF could introduce new licenses for their projects, but forked projects have to work under the conditions of the GPL. (question) does the OSFM membership retain it's voting power over a re-license for all derivative databases? Only on the OSM database. The OSMF can't change the license on modifications by people who have no relation with it. A while later ( 3 months) OSM decides to relicense the db, perhaps to ODbL 2.0. (question) what exactly defines _the_ geo-database of the the Project? (question) and following that, if someone was contributing to OSM before the fork and FSM after it, do they get a vote on the re-license? In my understanding they don't. This is an asymmetry, but I don't see any manageable way around it if we want to be able to change to a different license later. (And the ODbL is new and we'd be the first project to try it out, so I think we need a chance to switch to a different license in case anything goes wrong or some other future license turns out to be better.) 2) Some time after a re-license to ODbL, someone creates a derivative database called EvilStreetMap. They continue to release the data in accordance with the ODbL, but do not accept any outside contributors. (question) after waiting three months, who has voting rights over a re-license of EvilStreetMap? They can decide what to do with their modifications, but the OSM contributors have the right to vote on the licenses for the original database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mapmaker Data for Africa Released
Alexander Menk schrieb: According to [1], G**gle released the dataset for Africa on [2]. They say, non-profit organizations can use it. Does that include OSM? See https://services.google.com/fb/forms/mapmakerdatadownload/ Please don't use the Map Maker Source Data if: [...] (c) you want to create a mapping service (such as driving directions); or (d) you want to create any other service that is similar to a service already provided by Google through its products and APIs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey schrieb: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Though apparently there is some sort of exception for non-profits. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Ed Avis schrieb: If it is not possible to take one ODbL-licensed work, and combine it with another ODbL-licensed work to make a third ODbL-licensed work, then either the ODbL is even worse than it first appears, or the proposed OSM implementation of it is flawed. The ODbL certainly allows that. However if individual submissions to OSM were licensed under ODbL then OSM would be locked in to that license. I think ODbL is a good license for OSM, but I'm not sure it will remain the best possible license forever, so I think being able to change the license is important. Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings attached for the symbolic price of $1. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. The community vote makes sure the OSMF can't do that: or another free and open license chosen by a vote of the OSM Foundation membership and approved by a vote of active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] post-migration terms for maps rendered by OSM?
Mike Linksvayer schrieb: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:OpenStreetMap_maps Under what terms will maps rendered by OSM be available after the database is migrated to ODbL? That will be up to the people doing the rendering. For maps rendered on Wikimedia servers (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap), CC-BY-SA would seem like an obvious choice, but it's up to them. (b) Rendered maps will be under the ODbL itself. I guess that could be read into http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#How_does_this_affect_Wikipedia_and_other_projects_that_want_to_use_our_maps.3F I have just updated that FAQ. It was referring to an early out-of-date draft of the ODbL. One could presumably take the database under ODbL, render their own map, and release under any terms compatible with satisfying the notice/attribution requirement of ODbL for produced work -- 4.3 in http://www.co-ment.net/text/1280/ -- which presumably includes any of the main CC licenses, as well as many other possible release terms. Is this correct? Yes. What terms will non-map/data/database OSM contents (ie the wiki and maybe other things I don't know about) be under post-migration? Same as current, ie no migration, ie CC BY-SA, or migration to something else? I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I don't see any reasons for changing it. And I'm hoping that maps rendered by OSM (by far the most convenient source of maps rendered with OSM data) may be combined with CC BY-SA works so that another incompatible set of copylefted content isn't created, given that the biggest incompatibility in the copylefted content universe is about to be eliminated Compatibility with open content licenses has been an important point for us in working with ODC. One of the changes in the latest ODbL draft was made in order to remove any possible concerns about license compatibility on Produced Works. We believe that ODbL now is fully compatible with licenses such as CC-BY-SA or GFDL for rendered maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] signup notice
Stefan Baebler schrieb: the all data created by use of any tools which connect to openstreetmap.org part can be problematic, as my browser connects to openstreetmap.org. Heck, my computer and router also connect there, and so does my phone and so does my ISP and my email provider occasionally. The LWG discussed this in tonight's call. We'll need a different signup notice with the ODbL, but for now we'd suggest to change the wording as follows: By creating an account, you agree that all data you submit to the Openstreetmap project is to be (non-exclusively) licensed under this Creative Commons license (by-sa). Any comments? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] signup notice
Stefan Baebler schrieb: I guess a re-wording is needed here to calm down and invite the most paranoid would-be contributors. As far as I know, you're the first to complain. Anyway, what would you suggest? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
Frederik Ramm schrieb: 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? The ODbL does include a copyright license, with the provision that The copyright licensed includes any individual elements of the Database, but does not cover the copyright over the Contents independent of this Database. As I understand it, that means you can use individual database entries or insubstantial parts under DbCL only but need an ODbL copyright license if you use more than that. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
Jukka Rahkonen schrieb: And if the maintainer of the derived database has a community that continues to collect new data under ODbL 1.0 terms, and the main OSM has advanced to ODbL 1.1 or something, is it possible to exchange data between these two systems? According to RC1, you could use a later version of this Licence similar in spirit. We don't know what would be in the hypothetical ODbL 1.1, but I don't know of any licenses that would allow you to downgrade to a previous version (if a new license is released to fix problems with the old one, that option would kind of defeat the purpose of the release). Another question: If the major licensor stops distributing or making available the Database, can those who maintain derived databases immediately do the same? As I read RC1, they'll have to honor request for access to the database made to them while they were using it publicly, but that aside they can stop using the derived database at any time. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
Jukka Rahkonen schrieb: But what if OSMF is changing the license and somebody has managed to base some business on top of derived database licensed under the old ODbL license? Dou you lawyers say that it is a sound basis for building a business? For me it would feel more fair if the derivatives could keep the old license even if the mother OSM should update. Companies can then deside if they would rather take the new license, or to make a fork. According to section 9 of the ODbL, Releasing the Database under different licence terms or stopping the distribution of the Database will not withdraw this Licence (or any other licence that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this Licence) So yes, companies would have that option. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
Frederik Ramm schrieb: I have no idea if this concept of fixing the licensor to always be OSMF is workable at all. Is it used elsewhere, or is it an entirely new idea? A number of high-profile open source projects including GNU and Apache operate that way. The FSF will accept non-trivial changes to the GNU software only if you assign copyright to them. (Of course the license allows you to modify the software and distribute it on your own.) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on the ODbL on the co-ment website. That site isn't really suitable for longer texts, so I have copied it to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
Here's a short summary: OSMF was represented by Nick Black and Michael Collinson with Grant Slater and Henk Hoff joining in later on. There were 150 participants on IRC, and about 20 on the conf call, with about 10 of them speaking. Three main aspects were: * Discussion on the license and implementation plan mainly between Peter Miller (ITO) and OSMF * Discussion on how the process so far is seen by the German community in particular * Factual questions on the ODbL Some important points: OSFM is trying to get ODbL 1.0 in place as soon as possible and fix problems in version 1.1 later on. They would have hoped for more input from the community regarding the terms that users have to sign up to to upload data. (?) The Use Cases were given to OSMF's legal counsil, the response is exptected next week. The Working Group didn't have time to look into the Open Issues so far. Grant will take care of that now. Even though that means that a number of fundamental questions remain unanswered, no reason is seen to change the timeline. However, the time between the publication of the license and the vote will be increased from 3 to 10 days so as to allow legal review of the license. OSMF will try to communicate the purpose of the license change better with emphasis on the ShareAlike issue. They will try to address the German, Italian, etc communities better. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Click-Through required?
Frederik Ramm schrieb: ... I think that the assumption is that the contract is implicit - you do stuff with the data, you accept the contract., adding that the cure for breach of a contractual situation is typically how much money did the Licensor lose (open Licensor = none). There's no way that using data that you have a right to use anyway could be interpreted as a manifestation of assent to some contract. (Of course the assumption here is that the data cannot be protected by copyright etc.) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
80n schrieb: As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was grabbed at the last minute from here It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment page seem to be password protected.) The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much defeats the ODbL clause according to which a hyperlink is sufficient for a Produced Work. So an image description would read This image contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL), followed by the 760 word Factual Information License. That would sort of work on a Wikipedia image description page, but a newspaper would probably rather use the space to print two or three other stories. The license should allow modification for any purpose, but they only mention modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format. The disclaimer is different from the ODbL one. Either the ODbL disclaimer is unnecessarily verbose, or something is missing in this one. Also the license once uses Database where it should say Work, and capitalization for defined words is used inconsistently. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] regarding ODC and OKF
John Wilbanks schrieb: In terms of OKF, hosting licenses is hard, and versioning licenses is really hard, but OKF has been around for a while and is a solid group of folks. If they are going to host your license you are way ahead of the game in terms of having a group that is smart and honest and open in your camp. According to their web site, they are a Company Limited by Guarantee. I couldn't find any information on the owners. Regardless of who they are, why should we give them complete control over the license? It seems, if they were to decide to for example make our project PD, neither the OSMF Board, nor the OSMF members, nor anyone else could do anything about it? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
