[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

2010-12-09 Thread pec...@gmail.com
Hi everyone!

To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:

1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;

My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of
third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and
share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things
(theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the
license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data,
I don't have permission to change nature of the license.

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 have two questions - can it still be done,
what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not.

Cheers,
Peter.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

2010-12-09 Thread pec...@gmail.com
2010/12/9 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 Peter,

 pec...@gmail.com wrote:

 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;

 My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
 if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of
 third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and
 share alike.

 Do you have a concrete example of a third-party source that does not specify
 a concrete license, but requests a general attribution and share alike? Or
 is this only theoretical?

No, there are several real life cases for this. One case for
attribution, another for both attribution and share alike.

 While ODbL is good enough for both of these things
 (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the
 license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data,
 I don't have permission to change nature of the license.

 In the original setup, data that is not compatible with the CT would not be
 accepted, so if someone required attribution and share-alike, that data
 would not be compatible.

Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you
accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share
alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If
that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community.

Anyway, I understand your reasoning, i just want to find a solution to
keep as much data as possible in this migration between license regime
changes.

 The current mood in LWG (as per the latest CT draft) seems to be to allow
 such data in provisionally, i.e. you may contribute the data with some sort
 of flag (no idea about technicalities) that says if the license is ever
 changed then this data must be removed or so.

That would be a very good starting point for compromise. In fact, I
don't say that we couldn't get third-party data owners to relicense
their stuff accordingly to PD or else (if license is changed),
*problem* is that we don't have much change to do it in nearest future
(1 - 2 years). But it is doable (although only working on political
level).

Anyway, please keep us informed about this. If such option will exist,
that would be good solution.

 Since your argument in this posting was not that you personally require
 share-alike but you were concerned only about entering third-party data, I
 would much rather have *less* third-party data and *more* liberty for the
 project in the future, than *more data for the price of reduced liberty
 later. This would be like taking out a mortgage on what OSM is in 10 years.
 We would risk long-term problems for a short-term effect.

Well, there is a problem - I create map for *today*. Now, we need a
good, solid map. OSM is way to do it. Yes, there are sources which are
PD and free and you can do whatever you want with it. But there are
also very valuable sources which comes with restrictions. For time
these restrictions matched our current license. Now we have to abandon
and clean out these sources because license of OSM might change in the
future.

Now we want to make OSM ideal. Well, it is nice aim, but what worries
is this - isn't that possible that these good intentions will just
kill OSM? Reality is still there - there are lot of third-party
sources which will be untouchable for us just because we have such
ideal aim.

That worries me.

Anyway, thanks for great and detailed reply,
I will wait for news about temporary limit flag for data,
Cheers,
Peter.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk