Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Jukka Rahkonen  wrote:

>
> Have you noticed that there are already quite many Australian datasets
> including Victorian Government data listed here:
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Contributor_specific_attribution_and_disclaimer
>
>
Thanks, Jukka.  I suspect that "permission" isn't actually valid, as it
seems to extend from data.gov.au (Federal government) but most of the
datasets there are state or territory (eg, the VicMap Rivers dataset), and
are published on the relevant state/territory data portals (data.vic.gov.au,
data.act.gov.au) etc.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Andrew Harvey]

> Thanks, Jukka.  I suspect that "permission" isn't actually valid, as it
> seems to extend from data.gov.au (Federal government) but most of the
> datasets there are state or territory (eg, the VicMap Rivers dataset), and
> are published on the relevant state/territory data portals (data.vic.gov.au,
> data.act.gov.au) etc.

This is the original statement
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
whereby data@finance.gov.au gave OSM permission to redistribute
all CC BY data available through data.gov.au (regardless of original
publishing agency) under "a free and open license, including the Open
Database License" so long as OSM provides the attribution on it's
Contributors page.

I do question that validity, but if you take it as true then I believe
this means that all you need is this state data to be re-published at
data.gov.au for OSM to republish it under a it's ODbL license
relieving downstream users of any requirements to attribute the
government agency (only OSM), even if the original state agency
doesn't agree with this relicensing.

I would still rather we find some way that each government agency can
release their data such that we can use it in OSM without needing
explicit permission. I think it's a bit unfair to ask people to
release their data as CC0 when OSM won't, so if the attribution issue
can be fixed in a future CC BY version I think that would be the best
way forward.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Alex Barth]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> The problem is that they have specified a license with attribution that is
> unreasonable for geodata (CC BY 3.0 and earlier).
>

How so?

Emphasis is on "in a manner reasonable to the medium" which would be
totally satisfied by a mention and general terms of how data would be
modified on OSM on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Steve Bennett  writes:

> 
> Hi all,  I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria
(southeast Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported into
OSM. It's currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in principle
for it to be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making the recommended
statement "DELWP has no objections to geodata derived in part from Vicmap,
either traced from Vicmap map products, or directly from spatial extracts,
being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata database and
released under a free and open license".

Hi,

Have you noticed that there are already quite many Australian datasets
including Victorian Government data listed here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Contributor_specific_attribution_and_disclaimer

-Jukka Rahkonen
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Steve Bennett wrote [quoting DELWP]:
> My initial response is that we wouldn't want OSM to apply a more 
> restrictive license than ours

In which case they've chosen the wrong licence.

If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence
(CC-BY), then you are automatically giving permission for it to be
relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-only licence (CC-BY-SA). You
can't license under CC-BY and say "no-one may incorporate this data into a
dataset with share-alike restrictions". That would defeat the point of a
permissive licence, which is roughly (attribution aside) "do what you will
with this data".

They can go ask Creative Commons if they don't believe this.

So the question should be: given that they have already allowed the work to
be relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-required licence (CC-BY-SA)
which happens to have automatic compatibility with CC-BY, will they allow
the work to be relicensed under another share-alike, attribution-required
licence (ODbL) which unfortunately doesn't have automatic compatibility?
There's no principled reason I can see for granting one but not the other.

> DELWP doesn't want to get into creating one-off variations for 
> every potential user with a preference - Google, HERE, etc.

Where "etc." means "TomTom". There are only four worldwide geodata
providers. It's hardly a slippery slope of individual permissions.

Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Any-expert-CC-BY-ODbL-negotiators-tp5853511p5853553.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Simon Poole]

Hi Steve

Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
they currently using?

Simon


Am 30.08.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Steve Bennett:
> Hi all,
>   I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria
> (southeast Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported
> into OSM. It's currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in
> principle for it to be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making
> the recommended statement "DELWP has no objections to geodata derived
> in part from Vicmap, either traced from Vicmap map products, or
> directly from spatial extracts, being incorporated into the
> OpenStreetMap project geodata database and released under a free and
> open license".
>
> Specifically, they don't think ODbL is as "free and open" as CC-BY,
> and they don't particularly want to make a one-off statement for OSM.
>
> >The only other requirement is not to apply legal terms or
> technological measures that legally restrict others from doing
> anything the license permits. If the ODbL is more restrictive than our
> CC by Attribution this presents a problem for OSM, not for us. My
> initial response is that we wouldn't want OSM to apply a more
> restrictive license than ours, and in respect of the statement Steve
> wants us to provide, DELWP doesn't want to get into creating one-off
> variations for every potential user with a preference - Google, HERE,
> etc. 
> ...
>
> >We believe the CC by Attribution appropriate to sufficiently and
> equitably provide our data to all/anyone, and if Steve is concerned he
> should take it up with OSM. I'll refer it to Legal (not ours,
> DataVic's) if he wants to pursue it further. 
>
>
> It's all getting quite subtle and possibly out of my depth. I'm not
> sure if the concern is a misunderstanding about the implications of
> dual licensing, a philosophical objection to "free" licences that
> impose share-alike restrictions like ODbL, or something different.
>
> I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
> able to get involved in the discussion. 
>
> Thanks very much,
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

Wow, great responses everyone - much appreciated.

Simon Poole:
>Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
they currently using?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

You can see this for instance at:
https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/vicmap-hydro-connector-watercourse

Richard Fairhurst:
>In which case they've chosen the wrong licence.
>If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence
>(CC-BY), then you are automatically giving permission for it to be
>relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-only licence (CC-BY-SA). You
>can't license under CC-BY and say "no-one may incorporate this data into a
>dataset with share-alike restrictions". That would defeat the point of a

Thanks for confirming that. I was a bit confused by the term in the CC-BY
deed:

>You may not apply legal terms or technological measures
 that legally restrict
others from doing anything the license permits.

Which could be interpreted to mean you can't apply CC-BY-SA which
"restricts others" from using the data and not sharing it, which "the
license" (CC-BY) "permits". But CC's wiki explicitly says this is ok:

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_use.3F

>When creating an adaptation of material under the license identified in
the lefthand column [BY], you may license your contributions to the
adaptation under one of the licenses indicated on the top row [BY-SA] if
the corresponding box is green [it is].

Richard again:
>Where "etc." means "TomTom". There are only four worldwide geodata providers.
It's hardly a slippery slope of individual permissions.

Good point. Although hypothetically there could be non-worldwide providers.


Andrew Turner:
>So a simpler route here would be to suggest "upgrading" to use CC-By 4.0?

Getting DELWP (and most likely the rest of the Victorian government) to
switch to CC-BY 4.0, let alone CC-0, would be a huge task that would
probably involve all kinds of bureaucracy, working groups, etc etc.

Richard Best:
[a long, very helpful email currently stuck in moderation]
>Perhaps helpfully, there is a New Zealand Government precedent for the
situation you're facing here. Land Information New Zealand licenses a wide
range of geospatial data under CC-BY licences. However, it has also allowed
data to be made available on OSM under the ODbL. See here for details:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ

>I suggest you draw the Victorian State Government's attention to the
approach taken by Land Information in New Zealand, with a view to asking
the Victorian State Government to take the same approach. I completely
understand their position of not wanting to "get into creating one-off
variations for every potential user with a preference" but I think it's
important to appreciate that we're talking here about a global project
which has decided on the ODbL, that it would be extremely difficult to
change the current regime to another one and that there is no real downside
to the Victorian State Government dual-licensing its data, once under CC-BY
and separately under the ODbL (or, actually, allowing OSMF to license under
the ODbL). It's perfectly entitled to do that and people who want to use
the data directly from the Victorian State Government's site under CC-BY
can always do so. Most significantly, dual-licensing under CC-BY (via a
government site) and the ODbL (via OSM) allows the data to be used in a
wider range of contexts and for it to be mashed up with other rich datasets
already in OSM or that may be added to OSM in the future. Allowing this
could result in cultural, environmental, economic or social benefits for
Australians. This is all entirely consistent with the rationale for open
licensing in the first place.

Wow. Hard to believe that New Zealand open licensed their data 7 years ago.
Maybe this will be the precedent we need. That's really an excellent,
well-worded summary. Would it be alright with you if I CC'ed you in my next
response to them (which they have asked to be directed to *their* legal
team...)?

Steve



On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> Hi Steve
>
> Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
> they currently using?
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> Am 30.08.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Steve Bennett:
>
> Hi all,
>   I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria (southeast
> Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported into OSM. It's
> currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in principle for it to
> be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making the recommended
> statement "DELWP has no objections to geodata derived in part from Vicmap,
> either traced from Vicmap map products, or directly from spatial extracts,
> being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Stephan Knauss]

Hello Steve,

On 30.08.2015 17:14, Steve Bennett wrote:

I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
able to get involved in the discussion.


I'm no such expert, but they just require attribution. Did they state 
any specific way of doing so? If not, then maybe just mentioning in the 
wiki is fine for them?


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors

Stephan


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

Hi all,
  I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria (southeast
Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported into OSM. It's
currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in principle for it to
be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making the recommended
statement DELWP has no objections to geodata derived in part from Vicmap,
either traced from Vicmap map products, or directly from spatial extracts,
being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata database and
released under a free and open license.

Specifically, they don't think ODbL is as free and open as CC-BY, and
they don't particularly want to make a one-off statement for OSM.

The only other requirement is not to apply legal terms or technological
measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license
permits. If the ODbL is more restrictive than our CC by Attribution this
presents a problem for OSM, not for us. My initial response is that we
wouldn't want OSM to apply a more restrictive license than ours, and in
respect of the statement Steve wants us to provide, DELWP doesn't want to
get into creating one-off variations for every potential user with a
preference - Google, HERE, etc.
...

We believe the CC by Attribution appropriate to sufficiently and equitably
provide our data to all/anyone, and if Steve is concerned he should take it
up with OSM. I'll refer it to Legal (not ours, DataVic's) if he wants to
pursue it further.


It's all getting quite subtle and possibly out of my depth. I'm not sure if
the concern is a misunderstanding about the implications of dual licensing,
a philosophical objection to free licences that impose share-alike
restrictions like ODbL, or something different.

I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be able
to get involved in the discussion.

Thanks very much,
Steve
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Alex Barth]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
wrote:

 Hello Steve,

 On 30.08.2015 17:14, Steve Bennett wrote:

 I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
 able to get involved in the discussion.


 I'm no such expert, but they just require attribution. Did they state any
 specific way of doing so? If not, then maybe just mentioning in the wiki is
 fine for them?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors


Right. You don't need DELWP to give you any statement or permission in
order to import their data to OpenStreetMap or derive data  for
OpenStreetMap from their data.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Alex Barth]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 My understanding was that when you import data into OSM, you assign
 special permission to the OSMF to re-license the data under ODbL, so you
 need more than just CC-BY licensing to begin with. Did something change, or
 have I just been mistaken for a long time?


Not quite, you only need special permission if terms aren't clearly
compatible with an import in OSM:

 Sometimes the exact terms under which data can used is unclear and
clarification is needed.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Steve Bennett]

Huh. Really? Did I completely misunderstand this?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission

My understanding was that when you import data into OSM, you assign special
permission to the OSMF to re-license the data under ODbL, so you need more
than just CC-BY licensing to begin with. Did something change, or have I
just been mistaken for a long time?

Steve

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:


 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
 wrote:

 Hello Steve,

 On 30.08.2015 17:14, Steve Bennett wrote:

 I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
 able to get involved in the discussion.


 I'm no such expert, but they just require attribution. Did they state any
 specific way of doing so? If not, then maybe just mentioning in the wiki is
 fine for them?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors


 Right. You don't need DELWP to give you any statement or permission in
 order to import their data to OpenStreetMap or derive data  for
 OpenStreetMap from their data.



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


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Andrew Turner]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

 The problem is that they have specified a license with attribution that is
 unreasonable for geodata (CC BY 3.0 and earlier).

 Neither OpenStreetMap.org or most data consumers (e.g. MapBox) would meet
 the CC BY 3.0 and earlier attribution requirements.


So a simpler route here would be to suggest upgrading to use CC-By 4.0?

Or is Paul stating there is no known version of Creative Commons that is
acceptable to OSM except the completely unencumbered CC0?

Andrew



-- 
Andrew Turner
t: @ajturner
b: http://highearthorbit.com
m: 248.982.3609
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Paul Norman]

The problem is that they have specified a license with attribution that is 
unreasonable for geodata (CC BY 3.0 and earlier).

Neither OpenStreetMap.org or most data consumers (e.g. MapBox) would meet the 
CC BY 3.0 and earlier attribution requirements.

There are a few options for permission. The easiest might be to get them to 
grant permission to everyone under the CC0 license. This would meet the needs 
of us, as well as anyone else who would want to use their data

Another option is to educate them about data licenses. I'd only go this route 
if you can't get the data under CC0. They've talked about concern about their 
data being used under less-free license. Leaving aside what less-free means, a 
feature of attribution only licenses like CC BY is that you are allowed to do 
this.

On Aug 30, 2015 5:41 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:


 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de 
 wrote:

 Hello Steve,

 On 30.08.2015 17:14, Steve Bennett wrote:

 I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
 able to get involved in the discussion.


 I'm no such expert, but they just require attribution. Did they state any 
 specific way of doing so? If not, then maybe just mentioning in the wiki is 
 fine for them?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors


 Right. You don't need DELWP to give you any statement or permission in order 
 to import their data to OpenStreetMap or derive data  for OpenStreetMap from 
 their data.
  
  
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Andrew Harvey]

On 31 August 2015 at 12:05, Andrew Turner ajtur...@highearthorbit.com wrote:
 So a simpler route here would be to suggest upgrading to use CC-By 4.0?

 Or is Paul stating there is no known version of Creative Commons that is 
 acceptable to OSM except the completely unencumbered CC0?

See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-July/008163.html

CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Paul Norman]

Sent from my Cyanogen phone
On Aug 30, 2015 6:04 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Huh. Really? Did I completely misunderstand this? 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission

 My understanding was that when you import data into OSM, you assign special 
 permission to the OSMF to re-license the data under ODbL, so you need more 
 than just CC-BY licensing to begin with. Did something change, or have I just 
 been mistaken for a long time?

http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#I_would_like_to_import_data_XYZ.2C_can_I_just_go_ahead.3F

The license needs to be compatible, or you need permission. Obviously 
compatible licenses are CC0, PDDL, ODC-By, and the ODbL itself. Obviously 
incompatible licenses are any non-commercial or no derivative license.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk