Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. In theory we have more problems with the new terms and conditions than ODBL, ODBL seems cc-by compatible, but the terms and conditions allow other free and open licenses which isn't cc-by compatible. All that is needed to fix this is add a stipulation for the free and open license to be attribution based and the problem, for us, disappears. The alternative isn't pretty, potentially up to 1/3rd of the data might disappear, so we are some what concerned at this point. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John Smith schrieb: On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? Liz schrieb: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, In the US. OKFN seem to think it might. After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was the subject of the case. The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That would need court hearings to determine. Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to negotiate terms - The entity representing the data does not 'own' the data and it could be argued has no right to be a party to a contract over the data ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. The grounds of the case was purely over if facts themselves could be copyrighted, the ruling was based on if individual facts within a database were covered by copyright, and as a result the database itself. However as soon as you add creative content it changes things, but from what I've been told, there won't be a final ruling on this till next year, in the meant time Telstra (owner of white/yellow pages) is going round trying to get this over turned. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Michael Barabanov schrieb: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? It's case (1) in some jurisdictions and case (2) in other jurisdictions. The OSMF can't just relicense because of the places where it is (2), but people can arguable just reuse the data in places where it is (1). There are no solution possible. Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways. And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=... Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points? And so on ... Easy, both of them - there doesn't have to be a single copyright holder for a piece of work. I don't know how to deal with the splitting-merging problem and other similar cases. OSM seems to try to take a whiter than white approach to not copying of other sources, so it would seem a bit weird to be more lax with contributor's data. Of course, the only solution that is guarantees to work is to nuke the DB and start again. I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... I don't recall that being said, but I could be wrong. A lot of us Australians posting on the list 1) don't like the ODbL a lot, and 2) wondering about all the CC-BY data we've gotten from the Govetnment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 14 July 2010 14:05, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members? Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone involved in the project? Actually, I can't even find how you get on the LWG in the first place. You get on the mailing by asking the phone number and the time of the next conference call. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:05, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only discussion at a set time convenient for Europeans would be pretty high on that list. I don't know if you'll get out of being English-only, since like it or not it is the main working language of OSM (as with many open projects on the Internet). Using any other language is probably going to exclude even more people. I should have been clearer. The problem isn't that the communication happens in English, but that it's happening in real time over the telephone. My German is pretty basic, but I can follow everything on talk-de armed with Google Translate and dict.leo.org. However, I wouldn't be able to follow a real-time German teleconference. That applies to a lot of people that are involved in OpenStreetMap, and will increasingly apply as we attract more contributors outside of the US/European hacker community. As an example, during the live stream for SOTM's QA session in Girona someone in the audience interrupted Steve Coast and asked him (in broken English), to please speak slowly and enunciate carefully, because many in the audience couldn't understand spoken English at that pace. That person is a good example of someone interested in the project (at least interested enough to show up on SOTM), but would pretty much be naturally excluded from the current teleconference system. One thing that I've seen done in other projects is rotate between three meeting times eight hours apart. So for example one meeting would be 1800 UTC, the next 0200 UTC and the next 1000 UTC. Maybe that would mitigate it, I don't know. But since we're all volunteers living on a spinning globe I think what should be answered first is whether these discussions really have to be synchronous. Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from making the legal advice public. I can't speak for them, but I would guess it's more inadvisable than forbidden (with respect to licensing anyway). If you get advice saying we believe that sections A, B and C will hold up in court, section D probably would, E should unless XYZ happens and we don't know about F, then telling everyone that means anyone trying to get around it knows about the potential holes you found. I hope security through obscurity like that isn't something we're actually relying on. It'd also be trivially found out by anyone else willing to pay lawyers of equal caliber. Of course, people using the license will want to know about that kind of thing, so it's a trade-off. I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members? Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone involved in the project? Actually, I can't even find how you get on the LWG in the first place. I can't find that either. It'd be nice if the criteria for joining / application process was oneline somewhere. Maybe it is and I just haven't found it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
