Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Rob Myers schrieb: Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand? Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Rob Myers schrieb: Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand? I do apologize. The formatting in the email I used made it appear that was a quote from Anthony. I also apologize to Anthony. Fortunately I never make that kind of mistake when reading anything else. ;-) - Rob. ___ 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 Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Rob Myers schrieb: Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand? I do apologize. The formatting in the email I used made it appear that was a quote from Anthony. I also apologize to Anthony. I'm just more confused now. The claim being made by you and Robert seems to be: 1) OSM is PD in some jurisdictions. 2) ODbL somehow makes it not PD in those jurisdictions. The argument for this seems to be: 1) I've read this from people I trust. 2) It's on the list. My counter is: 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. Only Congress can do that. 2) When you slap a license on something that is public domain, it's still public domain. If a work is in the public domain you cannot claim a copyright in it. (http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html) Once in the public domain, it is always in the public domain. (http://www.public-domain-image.com/public_domain/public_domain.html) ...there is nothing anyone can do to move a work out of the public domain... (http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/348) If I'm misrepresenting your claim, please let me know. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony schrieb: 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind) make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different terms you like, right? I think it's clear that what is currently in the OSM DB will can be used under what the current terms apply, so we can't take away the unfairness for the data that is in there already - we can for data we add in the future though, from the point on where we contribute under changed terms. That said, I personally would have no problem if we'd have our data be PD in all jurisdictions, and I have no problem with having the same share-alike-type terms in all (major) jurisdictions. What I have a problem with is if we provide a significantly different playing field dependent on where in the world you are. A geographical database with geographical unfairness somehow feels wrong to me. ;-) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: 1) You can't take things out of the public domain. Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind) make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different terms you like, right? Not necessarily. If the work is ineligible for protection under the law (for instance, in the US if it is not copyrightable), then you can't put it under any different terms you like. That said, I personally would have no problem if we'd have our data be PD in all jurisdictions, and I have no problem with having the same share-alike-type terms in all (major) jurisdictions. What I have a problem with is if we provide a significantly different playing field dependent on where in the world you are. A geographical database with geographical unfairness somehow feels wrong to me. ;-) Then you should be in favor of CC-BY-SA 3.0 with an explicit waiver of the database right and an explicit waiver of sweat-of-the-brow copyright protection. ODbL, with its three areas of protection (copyright, database right, and contract law), offers three different places for geographical differences. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony schrieb: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but IANAL, so I really can't explain details. I just know that very (to me) believable and knowing sources here have clearly stated repeatedly that using CC-BY-SA for our data collection is equivalent to PD in some major jurisdictions in this world, while ODbL isn't (and though I fully would accept working under PD, I find it unfair that people have different permissions to use our data depending on where they live). Robert Kasier ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony: Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. Failing that, have a read of the previous conversations on this subject that you have participated in on this list and let us know what you are pretending not to understand this time. - Rob. ___ 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 Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but IANAL, so I really can't explain details. Okay, well, I'm just letting you know that you're wrong. A contract doesn't apply to people who haven't accepted it. If you can't show why something is true, you really shouldn't be basing your arguments on it. ___ 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 Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Anthony: Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. I think you're confusing me. I'm not the one claiming that data is PD in some jurisdictions. Robert Kaiser is. He said We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P It wasn't my claim, so I don't know what jurisdictions he was talking about. And to be more specific, I don't believe there is any jurisdiction in which OSM, in its entirety, is PD. I do know that unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States. But I also know that OSM is not merely an unorganized collection of facts. Certain excerpts of it are, but not the entirety. Finally, to explain my point, unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United States *regardless of whether or not you try to pretend they aren't by slapping the ODbL on top of them*. A contract is not binding upon people who have not accepted it, and there is absolutely no way OSM can force everyone who gets a copy of OSM to accept a contract. Even if they forced everyone who downloads OSM from planet.openstreetmap.org to click on I agree, they can't stop third parties from running mirrors where there is no such click-through. Failing that, have a read of the previous conversations on this subject that you have participated in on this list and let us know what you are pretending not to understand this time. What subject would that be? Can you narrow my search? Or were you just misunderstanding my point? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Nice post. Your comparison with contributions of effort to voluntary organisations is a good one, and has changed my view on the inclusion of a clause that allows the licence to be changed. With a dose of AGF, and a removal of my lawyer hat, I see the point and that it really should not be an issue for contributors. You're right, we're giving effort to the project, here it's in the form of information, not helping build a community hall, but that doesn't change the principle. I still have reservations about whether the change ability means the CTs are compatible with other the licences of other data sources from which data may be sourced, but that is a legal one, not a policy one on which now agree with you. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:38:50 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag Simon, Simon Ward wrote: 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. My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote: I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of free license, but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. I.e. he said he was afraid that somehow the PDists had achieved something (why he wrote all over again I don't know). My point is that the license that is now on the table, ODbL, is not a PD license. Anyone who would like OSM to be a PD project has not achieved something. The Contributor Terms provide a way for future generations of PDists, Share-Alike-Ists and whatnot in OSM to take the project's fate in their hands, battle it out, discuss it, whatever. This is good; it is not a win for anyone on any side in the license debate. (The best thing is that nobody loses either.) I reject outright the claim that the Contributor Terms effectively change the license. They leave a door open for future improvements, for an adaptation to changed circumstances or a changed mood in the community. But that is just a chance for change, not a change in itself, and any future change is possible only under strict rules. If you take an extremely individualist view then you will say: This is my data, I have contributed it, and I want to have every say in how it is used. This is not practical; you will always have to grant broad, general rights about your contribution to the project or downstream users. This is what happens today where you choose a license. In the future we expect you to not choose one particular license, but instead allow OSMF, together with the active project members of OSM, to choose a suitable license within certain constraints. In my eyes, this is not much different from the license upgrade clause in ODbL itself, only that the decision will in the hands of the future project, rather than in the hands of an elect few writers of the next license version. I think that it is morally very questionable to try and pre-emptively override a future 2/3 majority of active people in OSM. Those will be the people who shape, who maintain, who advance OSM, and they should have every freedom to decide what their project does; when we tell them that you cannot do X even if all of you are in favour, then X had better be the absolute essence without which OSM cannot continue under any circumstances. I think that you cannot choose a license that is not free and open matches this absolute essence pretty well. Now if someone says: I have firm beliefs and even if OSM in the future has 10 million active mappers and 2/3 of them decide they want a license that I don't like then I want to withdraw my contribution at that point (and that's what it boils down to - if we have no license change clause in the CT then you will have to be asked at that point) - then that is a very individualistic view; a view in which your data always remains yours, and never fully becomes part of the whole; a view in which your contribution is always provisional, in which you only lend the project something but not give. If you spend your time in, say, the local cycle campaign, improving the lot of cyclists, working long hours for many years, but then they snuggle up to a political party you don't like, then you can leave - but what you have contributed all those years will not be in vain, the effects will remain and be useful. Many people spend their spare time on voluntary work of some kind, and it is very unusual to have a clause that says if times change and suddenly I find myself in a minority in this project then I want
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
I agree with Frederik's very nice comparison of OSM with volunteer organizations as well. I guess OSM should be viewed as a collection of geodata to which Frederik, John, Liz, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Richard, Richard, Richard, et al have contributed to, instead of as a collection of Frederik's geodata, John's geodata, Liz' geodata, Steve's geodata, etc. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:39 PM, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: Nice post. Your comparison with contributions of effort to voluntary organisations is a good one, and has changed my view on the inclusion of a clause that allows the licence to be changed. With a dose of AGF, and a removal of my lawyer hat, I see the point and that it really should not be an issue for contributors. You're right, we're giving effort to the project, here it's in the form of information, not helping build a community hall, but that doesn't change the principle. I still have reservations about whether the change ability means the CTs are compatible with other the licences of other data sources from which data may be sourced, but that is a legal one, not a policy one on which now agree with you. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ 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 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding principle. OSMF was created to support the project, not be the project. What's the alternative? As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? Bye, Andreas ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding principle. OSMF was created to support the project, not be the project. What's the alternative? One alternative is status quo. Each person owns his/her contribution, and licenses it to OSMF under CC-BY-SA. Another alternative, which is probably preferable, is for each contributor to grant OSMF permission to sublicence their contributions under CC-BY-SA. Another alternative is the situation which was presented in the original CT, which was the one which was voted on by the OSMF members - everyone who receives the data receives the same license as OSMF. I'm sure there are others which could be come up with after setting the principles. As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. The copyright? The database right? Something else? Who owns Wikipedia? ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data. And, in fact, under the current proposed CT, the OSMF would *not* own the database. ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person? On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. The copyright? The database right? Something else? I mean the database right. For the european database directive (which is a protection for the investment into the database and not for the data (Leistungsschutzrecht in german)) you need someone who owns the database. Then no one should own the database right. The OSMF certainly should not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the OSMF. And it's not really any better for the OSM community as a whole to own the database right, especially under a one person, one vote scenario. Why should two people who contribute one node a month be able to override the wishes of one person who contributes 10 million nodes a month? So the only viable solution, IF the database right cannot be held by the individual contributors, is to waive the database right altogether. This also has the advantage of creating a situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to people in other jurisdictions. In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*? How do the CTs change this? Who owns Wikipedia? I think there is a big difference between a project like Wikipedia (where the single texts are copyright protected) and OSM (where most/all of the data is not copyright protected). Agreed. But that doesn't answer my question. ___ 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 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote: Who owns Wikipedia? At the copyright level, the ownership is fragmented. And yet that didn't stop the licence being changed. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: One alternative is status quo. Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there are quite a few). :P Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap. Or maybe Frederik can answer it: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000839.html ___ 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 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote: Then no one should own the database right. So we're back at the status quo which is in my opinion not the best option (many uncertainties). The OSMF certainly should not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the OSMF. I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF but I assume most do not really care (that's my real life experience with other organisations). And it's not really any better for the OSM community as a whole to own the database right, especially under a one person, one vote scenario. Why should two people who contribute one node a month be able to override the wishes of one person who contributes 10 million nodes a month? In your example it looks bad for the one person but in general I'm not afraid of a 2/3 majority. This also has the advantage of creating a situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to people in other jurisdictions. As long as there are no common world rules there will always be differences. Should we therefore just work in our own countries? In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*? That's the problem, nobody really knows. I would guess the owner of www.openstreetmap.org. How do the CTs change this? The make clear that OSMF claims the right for the database. Who owns Wikipedia? I think there is a big difference between a project like Wikipedia (where the single texts are copyright protected) and OSM (where most/all of the data is not copyright protected). Agreed. But that doesn't answer my question. I don't know :-). Wikimedia Foundation? I don't really care about them :-). Bye, Andreas ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote: The OSMF certainly should not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the OSMF. I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF I never said that more contributors should be members of the OSMF. In fact, I don't believe that more contributors should be members of the OSMF. People should only be members of the OSMF if they care about the functions of the OSMF, which is to *support* OSM, not to control it. And it's not really any better for the OSM community as a whole to own the database right, especially under a one person, one vote scenario. Why should two people who contribute one node a month be able to override the wishes of one person who contributes 10 million nodes a month? In your example it looks bad for the one person but in general I'm not afraid of a 2/3 majority. That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority. This also has the advantage of creating a situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to people in other jurisdictions. As long as there are no common world rules there will always be differences. True, which is why I painted this as a secondary advantage, and not the primary principle. In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*? That's the problem, nobody really knows. I would guess the owner of www.openstreetmap.org. Wouldn't that be the OSMF? How do the CTs change this? The make clear that OSMF claims the right for the database. The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first place. The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database right. (*) Is something like 1.2 going to be the next version of the CT? Is it just a proposal, or has the decision to modify the CT been made and only the details need to be sorted out? ___ 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 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first place. I think there's some mistaken use of terminology here, which may be confusing some people (even if not you). As it stands 1.2 grants a licence to use the contributed data in any way restricted by the database right (or copyright). It does not grant the right itself. OSMF does not become the owner of the right as a result. There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that view, but other views are more problematic. As you know database right law is still in its infancy, so its hard to be sure. The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But I'm not sure that is clear at all. I'd certainly think there's a good arguable case that the contributors jointly own a database right in the map data. you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database right. That is the position under CT 1.2. -- Francis Davey ___ 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 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote: The OSMF certainly should not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the OSMF. I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF I never said that more contributors should be members of the OSMF. In fact, I don't believe that more contributors should be members of the OSMF. People should only be members of the OSMF if they care about the functions of the OSMF, which is to *support* OSM, not to control it. Sorry wrong wording from me. I understand your point. That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority. But then why do you contribute to an community project like OSM? Don't misunderstand me, I respect your individualism. But I don't think that a collaborative database is possible if every contributor puts his ego first. There are always situations when the majority decides which is against your opinions (I don't speak here about bigger problems like minority rights in a society). This also has the advantage of creating a situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to people in other jurisdictions. As long as there are no common world rules there will always be differences. True, which is why I painted this as a secondary advantage, and not the primary principle. In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*? That's the problem, nobody really knows. I would guess the owner of www.openstreetmap.org. Wouldn't that be the OSMF? Whois says Andy Robinson/OSMF. How do the CTs change this? The make clear that OSMF claims the right for the database. The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. The mention at least the database (First sentence: Thank you ... contributing data ... to the geo-database; Point 3: OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database ...) which is better than the agreement before. 1.2 (*) says that the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first place. The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database right. I think that's the problem with understanding the database right. It just works for the database as a whole and doesn't care about the content (and it doesn't matter if the content (the single elements) is protected or not). If there are many contributors there is only one who can claim the right for it (the person who invest the most / builds the framework of the database / the owner of the server - that's the interpretation I found in the german literature). Bye, Andreas ___ 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 2010-12-08 18:36, Francis Davey wrote: There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that view, but other views are more problematic. As you know database right law is still in its infancy, so its hard to be sure. I think you're a lawyer, right? Because I'm not :-). My interpretation (and what I've read in some books) is that in databases where there are many contributors only the one with the greatest/most important investment has the database right (I've once read about an comparison with film work where only the directors has the copyright). And that should be the creator/administrator of the database. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Bye, Andreas ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote: That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority. But then why do you contribute to an community project like OSM? Because it's fun, because it's educational, and because when I map my area of town and you map your area of town, and then we combine those maps together, we both get better maps. Don't misunderstand me, I respect your individualism. But I don't think that a collaborative database is possible if every contributor puts his ego first. Well, I'd say pretty close to the exact opposite is true. But that's really a discussion for another list. ___ 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 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first place. I think there's some mistaken use of terminology here, which may be confusing some people (even if not you). As it stands 1.2 grants a licence to use the contributed data in any way restricted by the database right (or copyright). It does not grant the right itself. OSMF does not become the owner of the right as a result. There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that view, but other views are more problematic. As you know database right law is still in its infancy, so its hard to be sure. The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right. But I'm not sure that is clear at all. I'd certainly think there's a good arguable case that the contributors jointly own a database right in the map data. Okay, yes, you're quite right about this. I guess I went too deep into the let's assume temporarily that it really isn't possible to have collective database rights, even though I'm not sure whether or not this is the case. you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible. If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database right. That is the position under CT 1.2. Maybe technically, but it's rather useless without a license on everyone else's portion of the database, for which we are all, under the CT 1.2, dependent upon OSMF to grant, and under which the OSMF only promises (if anything at all) to grant under some free and open license which was agreed to by 2/3rds of active contributors. And considering that the very first license OSMF intends to use, the ODbL, isn't even one that I'd consider free and open (due to its restrictions on the use of factual information), that's not acceptable to me. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
The distinction 80n makes is the fundamental one to me and where the problems lie. There are two entities here that need to be considered separately. 1) The contributors, their contributions, and the applicable licence. 2) OSMF and the general running of OSM, where not related to licensing of data. I absolutely agree that OSMF needs freedom to change things in the future and it would be wrong if a minor contributor from today prevented a change in ten years after they'd left. On this I agree with Frederik. However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. The contributors make their data available on particular terms, and wish to understand them. Giving an indeterminate body (the future contributors) the power to change those terms means we can never know the details of the licence that our data will be licensed under. It is not far short of a straight assignment as the contributor loses control. I think the two issues need separating, with the ability to change the licence remaining solely in the hands of the contributor of each bit of data, and the running of OSMF in the hands of active people at the time. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 19:24:29 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Cc: pec...@gmail.compec...@gmail.com; Open Street Map mailing listt...@openstreetmap.org; Serge Wroclawskiemac...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Hi, On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. Maybe it is just a problem with concepts and wording. Where you say license, I think CT: The contributors grant OSMF the right to use their data under specific rules. These rules can never be changed without their consent, and it would be wrong (like you say above) to try and retroactively change these rules. These rules include the right for OSMF to redistribute the data under certain licenses, the choice of which must conform to a set of criteria which are defined *in advance* by the contributor and are *not modifiable*. So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Bye Frederik ___ 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 Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. Maybe it is just a problem with concepts and wording. Where you say license, I think CT: The contributors grant OSMF the right to use their data under specific rules. These rules can never be changed without their consent, and it would be wrong (like you say above) to try and retroactively change these rules. These rules include the right for OSMF to redistribute the data under certain licenses, the choice of which must conform to a set of criteria which are defined *in advance* by the contributor and are *not modifiable*. So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Actual active contributors are already a small minority of all contributors, and will inevitably become a smaller and smaller minority as time goes on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
I agree, but this is still a great deal of freedom. A PD licence would be free and open, but is a very different beast to ODBL. There is therefore the scope to very significantly alter the license without the direct agreement of a contributor to the specific terms. K Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:25:23 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag 80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. You would agree, however, that OSMF could change the license to one that is not share-alike? If you read the link I referenced about carpetbagging of UK mutual building societies, then you'll appreciate that the criteria for an active contributor is way to weak to be much of an impediment. ___ 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 Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license Free according to whom? Open according to whom? * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor As was pointed out in another thread, nothing stops OSMF from selectively locking out certain individuals so that they cannot remain active contributors. To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. ___ 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 Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. I think that 3 would have to be 10, though. ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: 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. Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. ___ 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 8 December 2010 00:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: 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. Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] Regards Grant ___ 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 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false statement being made repeatedly and you don't bother to ask the person to retract their comment and to refrain from pushing the same false statements in future. Instead you choose to make emotive statements trying to belittle those that would like to see a lot more honesty and transparency on the license debacle. You have just proven Steve Bennett point perfectly: I don't know how to have constructive discussions on the topic though - most seem to devolve fairly rapidly. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false statement being made repeatedly and you don't bother to ask the person to retract their comment and to refrain from pushing the same false statements in future. Instead you choose to make emotive statements trying to belittle those that would like to see a lot more honesty and transparency on the license debacle. I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and on with vexatious claims. What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you point them out? List archive links prefered. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Simon, Simon Ward wrote: 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. My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote: I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of free license, but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. I.e. he said he was afraid that somehow the PDists had achieved something (why he wrote all over again I don't know). My point is that the license that is now on the table, ODbL, is not a PD license. Anyone who would like OSM to be a PD project has not achieved something. The Contributor Terms provide a way for future generations of PDists, Share-Alike-Ists and whatnot in OSM to take the project's fate in their hands, battle it out, discuss it, whatever. This is good; it is not a win for anyone on any side in the license debate. (The best thing is that nobody loses either.) I reject outright the claim that the Contributor Terms effectively change the license. They leave a door open for future improvements, for an adaptation to changed circumstances or a changed mood in the community. But that is just a chance for change, not a change in itself, and any future change is possible only under strict rules. If you take an extremely individualist view then you will say: This is my data, I have contributed it, and I want to have every say in how it is used. This is not practical; you will always have to grant broad, general rights about your contribution to the project or downstream users. This is what happens today where you choose a license. In the future we expect you to not choose one particular license, but instead allow OSMF, together with the active project members of OSM, to choose a suitable license within certain constraints. In my eyes, this is not much different from the license upgrade clause in ODbL itself, only that the decision will in the hands of the future project, rather than in the hands of an elect few writers of the next license version. I think that it is morally very questionable to try and pre-emptively override a future 2/3 majority of active people in OSM. Those will be the people who shape, who maintain, who advance OSM, and they should have every freedom to decide what their project does; when we tell them that you cannot do X even if all of you are in favour, then X had better be the absolute essence without which OSM cannot continue under any circumstances. I think that you cannot choose a license that is not free and open matches this absolute essence pretty well. Now if someone says: I have firm beliefs and even if OSM in the future has 10 million active mappers and 2/3 of them decide they want a license that I don't like then I want to withdraw my contribution at that point (and that's what it boils down to - if we have no license change clause in the CT then you will have to be asked at that point) - then that is a very individualistic view; a view in which your data always remains yours, and never fully becomes part of the whole; a view in which your contribution is always provisional, in which you only lend the project something but not give. If you spend your time in, say, the local cycle campaign, improving the lot of cyclists, working long hours for many years, but then they snuggle up to a political party you don't like, then you can leave - but what you have contributed all those years will not be in vain, the effects will remain and be useful. Many people spend their spare time on voluntary work of some kind, and it is very unusual to have a clause that says if times change and suddenly I find myself in a minority in this project then I want the right to retroactively remove all my contributions because they are mine and mine only. Neither will you demand a written guarantee that the organisation is never going to change - most will have statutes, but those statutes can usually be changed by a certain majority. I am trying to take this discussion away from whether PD is better than share-alike and whether or not there is some secret PD campaign at work here trying to liberate (in their sense) OSM. I do not think it should matter. I don't want to engage in legal nitpicking either. I want to make a moral point. I belive that: * OSM is a collaborative effort. Licenses and copyright aside, what I contribute becomes part of the whole and cannot, should not be viewed as separate. Others will use my contribution and build on it. Withdrawing it later means ruining their work too. OSM is not the place for ownership. * Any organisation, or group, or project, should be able to govern themselves. Those who do the work should decide. From these two points follows, for me, that we must allow OSM-in-the-future to decide what license they want to
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 11:40, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and on with vexatious claims. What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you point them out? List archive links prefered. So you've seen my claims and so I can only conclude you are most likely trying to push me into wasting time to gather links to posts you are already fully aware of. Go Fish. ___ 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 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, pec...@gmail.com wrote: License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change data license to any other free license (which could be strip share alike and attribution requirements) what blocks usage. In fact, there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and that's even not working in all countries. I'm sure that if, at any time in the future, the OSM license needs to be changed, it will be into something that works in all countries. We don't know if it will ever be necessary; we don't know what that license might be; we don't even know which countries will be around then and what their legal systems will look like. Think long-term! This is not a clause aimed at next year. I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of free license, but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. As for the distant future - we don't know who will be in OSM then, what their preferences will be, and wheter you and I will be alive then. I think it is ok to let those who *then* run OSM decide, instead of trying to force onto them what we today think is right. I think the problem with this idea is that it opens the door for carpetbaggers[1]. The purpose of share-alike licenses is to prevent the freeness of people's contributions from *ever* being hijacked. I, for one, certainly want to ensure that whoever runs OSM at some indeterminate point in the future can not pervert the principle on which I made my contributions. Anything less is unacceptable and is disrespectful to those who built OSM in the first place. 80n [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger#United_Kingdom And legal-talk is that way --- Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
