Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
Am 27.02.2014 01:03, schrieb Luis Villa: ... Note that this is a substantially different task for 4.0 than for 3.0, because 4.0 (particularly BY-SA) now includes a database copyleft clause. Assessing how the ODBL and CC BY-SA 4.0 database clauses interact will be challenging. OSM/Open Data Commons could simplify the problem by declaring that CC 4.0 is a compatible license under ODBL 4.4(a)(iii), but there would still be some complexities To be clear, this is something that we (as in the OSMF) clearly would NOT want to happen as it would have the effect of removing the contractual nature (see ODbL 1.0 2.1c) of the ODbL in legislations that do not have sui generis database rights. The only thing we are interested in is the case of CC by 4.0 as an input licence (while CC by-SA x.x in principle could work too, using share alike data as an input is a not an option for other reasons). Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Diane Mercier diane.merc...@gmail.comwrote: I reiterate. It is the responsibility of OSM Foundation to instruct his community of his CC 4.0 interpretation as it has done for the CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 And in my humble opinion, the tiles and the BD licenses should updates to CC 4.0 to reduce proliferation of license, etc. Note that this is a substantially different task for 4.0 than for 3.0, because 4.0 (particularly BY-SA) now includes a database copyleft clause. Assessing how the ODBL and CC BY-SA 4.0 database clauses interact will be challenging. OSM/Open Data Commons could simplify the problem by declaring that CC 4.0 is a compatible license under ODBL 4.4(a)(iii), but there would still be some complexities to work through. Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.* ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
Municipalities and government of Québec will adopt the CC BY 4.0 Diane Le 2014-02-21 07:04, Simon Poole a écrit : This is I believe a simple misunderstanding: le...@osmfoundation.org is the internal list of the LWG legal-talk@openstreetmap.org is the legal discussion mailing list open to the general public. On the matter at hand: as I write in the quoted mail, we are quite open to taking the results of a review of CC by 4.0 wrt compatibility with our contributor terms and the ODbL 1.0 in to account. Note, as I wrote in my mail, it is likely not worth doing for CC by-SA 4.0 as it is clear that a share alike licence will not be CT compatible. Simon Am 21.02.2014 12:12, schrieb Diane Mercier: Translation in english of the title : Municipalities and government of Québec (Canada) will adopt the CC BY 4.0 - Ref. : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2014-February/006069.html Dear Paul, I am sorry to contradict you, but please find attached copy of my conversation with Simon Poole and le...@osmfoundation.org against the CC 4.0 This conversation includes the response of Simon Poole. I also copy to the list of discussion legal-talk @ I reiterate. It is the responsibility of OSM Foundation to instruct his community of his CC 4.0 interpretation as it has done for the CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 And in my humble opinion, the tiles and the BD licenses should updates to CC 4.0 to reduce proliferation of license, etc. Regards, Note : See press releases http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/un-avantage-pour-les-citoyens-montreal-disposera-de-la-licence-ouverte-cc-4-une-premiere-au-canada-en-matieres-de-donnees-ouvertes/ http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/actualites/fiche_autres_actualites.aspx?id=13362 --- Dre Diane Mercier @MTL_DO | donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca @okfnca | ca.okfn.org @_FACiL | facil.qc.ca @carnetsDM | dianemercier.com http://about.me/dianemercier http://vizualize.me/oKvvtBkJXK?r=oKvvtBkJXK Webographie du libre : https://www.zotero.org/dmercier/items/order/dateModified/sort/desc « Pas de données ouvertes, sans logiciel libre ni formats ouverts » Le 2014-02-21 01:42, Paul Norman a écrit : No one has raised the issue on legal-talk@ since CC 4 was released. *From:*Pierre Béland [mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr] *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:43 AM *To:* diane.merc...@gmail.com; Talk-ca (OSM) *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec Merci Diane pour ces infos. Ce sont là de bonnes nouvelles pour la communauté OSM du Québec. Espérons que nous aurons rapidement des nouvelles de la part du comité légal de OSM là-dessus. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official confirmation of the exact license adopted. I disagree. Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a no-restrictions, equivalent-to-Public-Domain-license, like ODC-PDDL, will require a waiver or clarification from the municipality (or province / territory, or feds) that attribution as provided by OpenStreetMap (wiki page, probably listed on a sub-page) meets their interpretation of attribution. So, adoption of CC-anything-but-0 is bad for local OSM communities. It would likely work out okay in the end for those local OpenStreetMap communities. To my knowledge, every municipality approached for such a waiver has granted it. To OpenStreetMap Foundation at least. For the Open Data community at large, and for the municipality / governement itself, adoption of any restricting license is a disaster. For one thing, not every potential open project will be on the radar of a municipality in the same way that OpenStreetMap is. Too bad for that potential Open Data Project. Perhaps they'll get the waiver they need, perhaps they won't. Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. Another sign of bizarre, Open-blindness. I've had government open data representatives say to me, the equivalent of, So what if the license says something complicated. It's open, just do what you want. We won't go after anybody who breaks the license. We just need to be able to shut down anybody who embarrasses us. Ahem. No. 0) If you plan to grant wavers and exemptions anyway, why not just use an unrestricted license? Oh, did you want to only grant exemptions for projects / persons of whom you approve? That doesn't sound very open. 1) If you don't plan to enforce your license terms, why select (or worse, why draft) a license with restrictions? Select ODC-PDDL instead. 2) If you want developers to work with your data, do you want developers who care enough to read, understand and follow your terms, or not? Because your license with restrictions just cut out a portion of those developers. You can still keep the developers that don't read licenses, or don't care about the terms. Congratulations. 3) What, you want to shut down a use of the data that embarrasses you? No. It doesn't work that way. If Open Data can be shown to expose that your mayor is a pathologically lying, bullying, drug addict with possible links to organized crime, you don't get to shut down the analysis just because your boss finds it embarrassing. (It's just a hypothetical example) 4) If you really do plan to grant a waiver or exemption to every project / user who asks for it, shouldn't you have selected an unrestricted Open Data License that didn't place the burden of that extra waiver step upon you (and each potential user) ? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official confirmation of the exact license adopted. I disagree. Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a no-restrictions, equivalent-to-Public-Domain-license, like ODC-PDDL, will require a waiver or clarification from the municipality (or province / territory, or feds) that attribution as provided by OpenStreetMap (wiki page, probably listed on a sub-page) meets their interpretation of attribution. So, adoption of CC-anything-but-0 is bad for local OSM communities. It would likely work out okay in the end for those local OpenStreetMap communities. To my knowledge, every municipality approached for such a waiver has granted it. To OpenStreetMap Foundation at least. For the Open Data community at large, and for the municipality / governement itself, adoption of any restricting license is a disaster. For one thing, not every potential open project will be on the radar of a municipality in the same way that OpenStreetMap is. Too bad for that potential Open Data Project. Perhaps they'll get the waiver they need, perhaps they won't. Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. I agree that all PSI ought be public domain, with ODC-PDDL or CC0 or some other public domain instrument, since the sane default isn't the default. But calling attribution-only terms a closed-data-failure (BTW, what does that make ODbL? Is OSM the only entity in the world that can use non public domain terms and not be a closed data fail?) seems over the top. Asking for a clarification that provided attribution is OK seems over the top too, at least for CC-BY, especially CC-BY-4.0, given You may satisfy the [attribution conditions] in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. If every attribution needs to be clarified with the licensor to determine if it is OK, then attribution licenses truly are a fail. But that practice is certainly not the intent of such licenses. IMO, IANAL, etc etc. The remainder below is most excellent. Another sign of bizarre, Open-blindness. I've had government open data representatives say to me, the equivalent of, So what if the license says something complicated. It's open, just do what you want. We won't go after anybody who breaks the license. We just need to be able to shut down anybody who embarrasses us. Ahem. No. 0) If you plan to grant wavers and exemptions anyway, why not just use an unrestricted license? Oh, did you want to only grant exemptions for projects / persons of whom you approve? That doesn't sound very open. 1) If you don't plan to enforce your license terms, why select (or worse, why draft) a license with restrictions? Select ODC-PDDL instead. 2) If you want developers to work with your data, do you want developers who care enough to read, understand and follow your terms, or not? Because your license with restrictions just cut out a portion of those developers. You can still keep the developers that don't read licenses, or don't care about the terms. Congratulations. 3) What, you want to shut down a use of the data that embarrasses you? No. It doesn't work that way. If Open Data can be shown to expose that your mayor is a pathologically lying, bullying, drug addict with possible links to organized crime, you don't get to shut down the analysis just because your boss finds it embarrassing. (It's just a hypothetical example) 4) If you really do plan to grant a waiver or exemption to every project / user who asks for it, shouldn't you have selected an unrestricted Open Data License that didn't place the burden of that extra waiver step upon you (and each potential user) ? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: [ ... ] Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. I agree that all PSI ought be public domain, with ODC-PDDL or CC0 or some other public domain instrument, since the sane default isn't the default. But calling attribution-only terms a closed-data-failure (BTW, what does that make ODbL? Is OSM the only entity in the world that can use non public domain terms and not be a closed data fail?) seems over the top. Government Open Data, and OpenStreetMap Open Data are different kettles of fish. And so different goal posts apply to each. Government Open Data is more-correctly Citizen Open Data. For that same government to attempt to then restrict the use of that data by the citizens who own it, and pay for it (and, in fact who own the government :-) ) well, that's the part that is over the top. :-) OpenStreetMap data is created by the OpenStreetMap contributors. Where those same contributors decide to place themselves, as a group, along the Open Spectrum has nothing to do with government, er, *strikeover* citizen data. It might also be a a long-standing and heated discussion amongst those same contributors. :-) Thanks, Mike. Cheers. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
CC BY 3.0 and earlier had onerous attribution requirements for data. I believe 4.0 fixes this. I don't think anyone has suggested contacting a data provider who's licensed under CC 4.0 licenses to clarify attribution. The issue with 3.0 attribution are not purely theoretical, there have been providers who have objected to how we have attribution and we've been unable to use their data. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: Asking for a clarification that provided attribution is OK seems over the top too, at least for CC-BY, especially CC-BY-4.0, given You may satisfy the [attribution conditions] in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. If every attribution needs to be clarified with the licensor to determine if it is OK, then attribution licenses truly are a fail. But that practice is certainly not the intent of such licenses. IMO, IANAL, etc etc. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
