Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 2 February 2012 15:11, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: andrzej zaborowski schrieb: Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said give away. But obviously we're talking about the grant of rights. Yes, every open soruce license is a grant of rights, as that's the basic definition of open. If there wouldn't be a grant of any rights, no license would be needed at all, as copyright law in various countries covers not being able to use other people's work pretty well. All we are about is being able to use other people's work, though. Yep. But then I don't understand what your point is, I think we agree about the terms. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
andrzej zaborowski schrieb: I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects. Interesting to see Mozilla mentioned here as clearly every contributor retains his rights when contributing to Mozilla code and does not assign any of his rights to anyone. You're right when it comes to FSF though, they have a strict copyright assignment policy, when you contribute code there, you don't own it any more but the FSF does. Also note that under the OSM CTs, there is no copyright assignment per se, there is only a sub-license agreement. You don't *give away* your copyright, but you allow the OSMF to to *use* your copyrighted material and sub-license it. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Mike Dupont schrieb: This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, they are my contributions that I then willingly share with others. This is exactly what the CTs say. You sign there that you own your edit and grant the OSMF to sub-license it if needed and under well-defined terms. IMHO it's a shame we only introduced such terms so late. When I started contributing, my understanding was that I was *giving my contributions to the project* which includes that the project can use it under share-alike-style terms and license them for use of anyone, but I always wondered why there was no agreement I needed to OK that said that in detail. (Of course, the OSMF is the legal representative of the project, as the project has no legal standing by itself at all.) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi Robert, On 31 January 2012 21:53, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: andrzej zaborowski schrieb: I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects. Interesting to see Mozilla mentioned here as clearly every contributor retains his rights when contributing to Mozilla code and does not assign any of his rights to anyone. Assignment of your rights requires a written agreement in some jurisdictions so there's no talk of that. Mozilla, Facebook, etc, as you say, require a grant of the right to sublicense and other rights. As a result individual contributors are no longer the end licensors as in most projects I know as free and as in OpenStreetMap today. Various reasons are being quoted for doing that and there are various reasons against it (see the last two years of this list's archives). You're right when it comes to FSF though, they have a strict copyright assignment policy, when you contribute code there, you don't own it any more but the FSF does. Also note that under the OSM CTs, there is no copyright assignment per se, there is only a sub-license agreement. You don't *give away* your copyright, but you allow the OSMF to to *use* your copyrighted material and sub-license it. Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said give away. But obviously we're talking about the grant of rights. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 29/01/12 23:11, Mike Dupont wrote: My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the rights to their own work license it freely. They do so in free recognition that their contingent power should not constrain the fundamental freedom of others. That is, they recognise the persuasive moral case for doing so. This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, Only under state granted monopolies with varying justifications. they are my contributions that I then willingly share with others. If I did not own them, how could I contribute them? Copyleft is a general neutralization of copyright (rather than a local neutralization, like permissive licences). Nothing more. If we believe that copyleft is a good thing (and I certainly do) then this involves a suspension of the privileges of romantic authorship as embodied in the law. Despite our self interest in our authorship, our general self interest is better server by deprecating our self interest in our authorship. It is reasonable to object to the ODbL on the grounds of principle as it is not a full-stack copyleft, rather a database copyleft. But this is because of how it affects the class of individuals that use resources placed under it (which includes its authors...). Not because of its treatment of our investment in our individual authorship of elements in work under it. This may read as polemic. That's only because it is. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Am 28.01.2012 08:47, schrieb Mike Dupont: then I determined that I will not be able to accept the terms because someone, who is a Hasardeur in my humble opinion, decided to break compatiblity with the existing license and then, break from the idea that I own my data and ask me to hand over them ownership. I sort-of feel responsible for my areas of the map, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it my data. I contribute to this map, because I want free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into the hands of the community of which you and I are a part. So I hope you understand when I call your opinion to be quite selfish and even offensive. The so-called loss of data is lost already, because it stands in the way of many innovative and good uses of our map data. CC 4.0 will not solve that. these two things, mean that I cannot accept the CT and I cannot also understand how people reached such a decision. It also means that any data imported under the old license must be removed. I'm not afraid of any data loss, because I know our community can deal with it, I joined the project when the community consisted of about 10k contributors and I had to start off alone in a 400k inhabitants city. It worked the first time, it will work a second time. Not with the same people probably, because some already left the project, some will be demotivated by the data loss. but filling in gaps is really much quicker done than starting from scratch. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: demotivated by the data loss. but filling in gaps is really much quicker done than starting from scratch. +1, at least there already are tags for most things, comfortable editors and lots of experienced mappers ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: I sort-of feel responsible for my areas of the map, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it my data. I contribute to this map, because I want free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into the hands of the community of which you and I are a part. So I hope you understand when I call your opinion to be quite selfish and even offensive. My data or OSM community's data are vague terms in the world of free data. In practice it's everybody's data and using a free license is enough for that. Granting the OSM community special rights doesn't make it more free. I think this is what Mike says. I agree with Mike. There are so many great projects where individual contributors are the end licensors and I really love that model. It doesn't change much for the end user, but somehow it has always felt right to me and felt like the future of the crowdsourced world. I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects. With disappointment I have to add OSM to my personal list of projects that are going worse and where good times are gone. (We all have such lists and yes, we're frustrated with one change but we fail to notice all the positive changes happening at the same time..) The so-called loss of data is lost already, because it stands in the way of many innovative and good uses of our map data. What uses do you have in mind?? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
I am going to explain my viewpoint on this. My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the rights to their own work license it freely. Other people who license that work via copyleft are then allowed to create derived works, and adding in value create new works that are again redistributed. This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, they are my contributions that I then willingly share with others. If I did not own them, how could I contribute them? The community, the public are free to license my works under the give license and carry them forward. The goals of making free and open data are not affected by this ownership. I dont see any problems with this idea yet, but I am open to hearing other peoples input. Maybe I will have to correct my view. I don't see anything selfish or offensive and would appreciate that you really take the time and explain you views. It is a real shame if we cannot have a detailed discussion. I am just explaining the legal basis behind copyright and copyleft : Copyright says that I own all my work and you have no right to copy it, copyleft says you are allowed to copy it under certain conditions that are helpful to building a community. You might consider copyright to be selfish in itself or the idea of ownership in general, so please explain yourself. thanks, mike 2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: I sort-of feel responsible for my areas of the map, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it my data. I contribute to this map, because I want free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into the hands of the community of which you and I are a part. So I hope you understand when I call your opinion to be quite selfish and even offensive. The so-called loss of data is lost already, because it stands in the way of many innovative and good uses of our map data. CC 4.0 will not solve that. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I am just explaining the legal basis behind copyright and copyleft : Copyright says that I own all my work and you have no right to copy it, copyleft says you are allowed to copy it under certain conditions that are helpful to building a community. You might consider copyright to be selfish in itself or the idea of ownership in general, so please explain yourself. But copyleft is in fact an exercise in copyright. Some people have this mistaken idea that copyleft != copyright. Copyleft exists because the copyright owner has the sole right to decide how copies of his IP can be made and that the owner has decided to freely share and let others copy his IP. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
That is an excellent question Stefan d. k., very good. Also considering that the previous stance was that wikipedia should not be imported at all because it is mostly derived from non free sources. Also I wonder why this mail is being sent to talk, about licensing, should be on legal anyway? mike On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 27-01-12 18:44, Michael Collinson schreef: But what about negative factors? As my unanswered questions to the OSMF-Board remain, what is the situation with Wikipedia data in OSM? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAk8i84gACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0VUQCfZsnBAA9EK6ZiHRQZeGaazr85 xW4An0YaeDrF38sym+1Vt2L9P8gDWQ4d =osrx -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/27/2012 6:48 PM, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hi Mike and Graham, We should not assume that contributors' acceptance of the new licence means that they are particularly in favour of it - they may have just accepted because it was easier than getting involved in the argument, and did not see it as doing any harm. From a personal point of view I fall into that category - I have no interest in changing the licence, but am not against it per-se, so accepted. Because I see negligible benefit in changing the licence, I find it very hard to justify data loss by progressing with it. +1 on this : this is precisely my view. I really don't mind one way or the other about the licence, and have kept out of it until now mostly because I have no wish to get into arguments... but what I definitely don't want to see are large holes appearing on the map come April 1st. I am particularly concerned about my local patch, Hampshire, with a former mapper, almost certainly in the top 5 Hampshire contributors, having declined the CTs. I do wonder if it will do more harm than good to switch over. I in fact oppose the license change. But I oppose it because of the damage it will do, so declining would be hypocritical. I did not care enought to pay attention to the details of the license change, thinking that we are dealing with responsible people and trusting the OSMF board to deal with peoples data in a responsible way. then I determined that I will not be able to accept the terms because someone, who is a Hasardeur in my humble opinion, decided to break compatiblity with the existing license and then, break from the idea that I own my data and ask me to hand over them ownership. these two things, mean that I cannot accept the CT and I cannot also understand how people reached such a decision. It also means that any data imported under the old license must be removed. all of these things make me want to cry and really demotivated me. I hope some day the board will rethink this disaster, and I hope that creative commons 4.0 will solve the problems and make this mess go away. I have trust in the creative commons board still and know they will not abuse it, I dont have that trust any more for the osmf board for the above stated reasons. thanks, mike moved to legal talk because of topic. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
