Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 19 April 2011 01:27, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Where? The only reference I see to sublicense is You may not sublicense the Work. See my earlier remarks. 4(b) permits the distribution (amongst other things) of a Derivative Work under a licence (which might not be a CC licence) other than the one under which the Work was licensed. i.e. Y licenses rather than X (using our original terminology) which makes it a sublicence - though it is not called that. Y can't license a work to which Y doesn't own the copyright, unless Y has permission to sublicense the work. And CC-BY-SA specifically disallows sublicensing. We can agree to disagree on this perhaps. I'm confident that I could persuade a judge that a licence given by Y is binding on Y. As a general rule though I may not give what I do not have, I may licence the use of that which I do not have the power to licence and that licence, though not valid against the real owner is valid against me. Its a feature of relativity of title and/or estoppel. I don't know what your jurisdiction is, so it may be you don't have those concepts there. But its probably not worth the time arguing over it. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 18 April 2011 02:13, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Presumably they would point out that the incorrect part of your reasoning is that Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and cannot be anything else. Redistribution under a license is not sublicensing. I'm not even quite sure how you'd construe them to be the same. If I give you permission to (re)distribute my work under a license, I am not giving you permission to sublicense that work. Obviously we mean different things by sub-license. Can you explain what you understand it to mean? If X licenses a work to Y under licence L1 and Y licences the same work to Z under licence L2 where Y's right to give L2 is given under L1 then L2 is a sublicence of L1. That is the situation you are describing. And that is (as I understand it) what sublicence means. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
That is the situation you are describing. I'm not sure what you mean by the situation you are describing, but Ah, this is where we are probably at cross purposes. I am sorry for that - its been a long thread. 80n's original query concerned uploading work to OSMF by someone who has agreed to the contributor terms. That is a sublicence (because it is expressed that way) and that is something which CC-BY-SA does not permit (I think we agree on that point). it's not how CC-BY-SA works, since CC-BY-SA specifically says that it does not grant permission to sublicense. Instead Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License. ... and my mistake, yes of course the right to sublicense applies only to derivative works. Under the US 3.0 at least, the CC licence grants a right to sublicence derivative works but not the original work. Under CC-BY-SA, X licenses the work to Y, Z, and any other third party, granting permission to distribute the work under [the terms of] L1, L2, or any other Compatible License. The licenses to the contributions of X come from X, not from Y. Yes. If Y made modifications to the work, Y's license covers only Y's modifications. If Z then makes modifications, Z's license covers only No. Y's licence covers the whole of the derived work. X's licence covers all the work as not modified by Y. Z benefits from both those licences as against the respective licensors, which makes sense. Z's modifications. I assume the reason this is done is to simplify the chain of title, and also to avoid complications with copyright transfers, inheritance, infringements, etc. On the why though maybe a CC list would be the best place to ask. Yes, that was my understanding. The CC model is a new licence to all users of the work from the original licensor which avoids problems with chain of title. To the extent that CC licences are not contracts this is fine. Certainly in the UK CC doesn't rely on contract to work. I suspect there are more difficulties with ODbL style contract-reliant effects to third parties of this kind. Anyway, as you say this is fairly off topic and not what 80n asked. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa, especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes would matter just as much. For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing data for is to work out what doesn't need to be done. Same would go for the Canadian mass import currently occurring,same goes for other data imports such as OS. The only time it would matter is for things like extrapolation the position of streets based on the location of existing streets. IANAL etc On 4/17/11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Sent from my mobile device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license. CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to release the data *in the future* under another license. If the data will be released *in the future* under a different license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, not breaching the CC license. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:55 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa, The definition of a derivative work is pretty clear. ... a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, ..., or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,... Modifying content that has been downloaded from OSM is a transformation based upon the Work and (presumably) other pre-existing works (such as tracklogs or imagery). The test of this would be to try using JOSM to contribute without doing a download first. You will not get a good outcome. especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes would matter just as much. For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing data for is to work out what doesn't need to be done. Same would go for the Canadian mass import currently occurring,same goes for other data imports such as OS. The only time it would matter is for things like extrapolation the position of streets based on the location of existing streets. Yes, it's editing of *existing* content that is the breach, not the contribution of pure new content in a previously mapped area or when an import is performed without reference to existing content. IANAL etc On 4/17/11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Sent from my mobile device ___ 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] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license. Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution. This can only be done under CC-BY-SAQ. You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the terms required by the CTs. CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to release the data *in the future* under another license. You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement. Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement. The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA licensed content, you do not have. What OSMF subsequently proposes to do is irrelevant. If the data will be released *in the future* under a different license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF now, not in the future, that they do not have. Contributors, not OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs. They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that. But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, not breaching the CC license. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ 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] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM servers is a form of publishing in terms of copyright. If you create a work and never publish it (in other words, nobody else will see it), then it is not yet copyrighted. Even works for hire are not copyrighted until the hiring entity publishes it. Again, IANAL, but submitting data to the OSM server where it is *immediately* published via the OSM API and *immediately* made available to the public licensed as CC-BY-SA, doesn't put the contributor in breach of the CC license. Since the publishing doesn't occur until the data is made available via the OSM API (and the OSM Planet), then I believe there is no problem. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license. Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution. This can only be done under CC-BY-SAQ. You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the terms required by the CTs. CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to release the data *in the future* under another license. You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement. Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement. The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA licensed content, you do not have. What OSMF subsequently proposes to do is irrelevant. If the data will be released *in the future* under a different license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF now, not in the future, that they do not have. Contributors, not OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs. They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that. But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, not breaching the CC license. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ 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 -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM servers is a form of publishing in terms of copyright. Indeed, it's the act of distribution. The question is, if the user uploads a derivative work to OSM is that than an act of distribution? If they were to distribute a copy of the derived work to some other third party such as Google, and grant Google rights that go beyond CC-BY-SA then it's clear that they have breached CC-BY-SA. There is no special condition or exception for OSM and so the same rule applies. If you create a work and never publish it (in other words, nobody else will see it), then it is not yet copyrighted. Even works for hire are not copyrighted until the hiring entity publishes it. Again, IANAL, but submitting data to the OSM server where it is *immediately* published via the OSM API and *immediately* made available to the public licensed as CC-BY-SA, doesn't put the contributor in breach of the CC license. Since the publishing doesn't occur until the data is made available via the OSM API (and the OSM Planet), then I believe there is no problem. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license. Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution. This can only be done under CC-BY-SAQ. You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the terms required by the CTs. CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to release the data *in the future* under another license. You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement. Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement. The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA licensed content, you do not have. What OSMF subsequently proposes to do is irrelevant. If the data will be released *in the future* under a different license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF now, not in the future, that they do not have. Contributors, not OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs. They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that. But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, not breaching the CC license. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ 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 -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 11:39, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. I asked a similar question in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is that most likely your contribution in this case equals to only the *modification* of the original data. So you're granting OSM a license on your modification of the original data, and not the exact contents of the XML document being uploaded. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I asked a similar question in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is that most likely your contribution in this case equals to only the *modification* of the original data. So you're granting OSM a license on your modification of the original data, and not the exact contents of the XML document being uploaded. If I have understood the question correctly - and I am not clear on the technical details (*) - then I think this must be right. The CT's aren't particularly clear on this point, but I am fairly confident a court would understand: Thank you for your interest in contributing data and/or any other content (collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the “Project”). to mean by contributing data, that data which will change OSMF's database. Since anything which is uploaded that is already their cannot be properly understood as a contribution. The context in which OSMF operates suggests this is the intention of the terms as well. (*) Not that I can't understand them - I may be a lawyer but I have some technical competence - just that I don't know how they work specifically. I've fiddled with OSMF a bit, but don't know all the ways in which one could download and edit information and what implications that could have for the database. I am assuming that there is a usual way of working which involves a download of parts of the OSMF database, editing that downloaded data structure and then uploading so that the changes made change the OSMF database. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I asked a similar question in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is that most likely your contribution in this case equals to only the *modification* of the original data. So you're granting OSM a license on your modification of the original data, and not the exact contents of the XML document being uploaded. The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under any other license than CC-BY-SA? If I grant you a license to use a creative work under CC-BY-SA, can you then give it to some third party under a different license? I don't see that CC-BY-SA permits this. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under any other license than CC-BY-SA? I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not quite sure I understand this one. What do you mean by upload .. .under a licence? That doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean, does CC-BY-SA permit a contributor to contribute to OSMF under the existing contributor terms? (Answer: no) or do you mean something else? If I grant you a license to use a creative work under CC-BY-SA, can you then give it to some third party under a different license? I don't see that CC-BY-SA permits this. Yes, for some values of a different licence. Eg, CC-BY-SA 3.0 (us version): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s). Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which directly contradicts what is said in 4(b). Clearly what is intended is that there is a general rule against sublicensing, subject to a specific set of permissions under clause 4(b) even though this comes under a heading Restrictions. Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and cannot be anything else. As I have said (possibly on another list - I lose track) CC-BY-SA does prevent a broad and general sublicence of the kind found in many projects such as clause 2 in the contributor terms. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17/04/11 14:17, Francis Davey wrote: Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s). Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which directly contradicts what is said in 4(b). Clearly what is intended is that there is a general rule against sublicensing, subject to a specific set of permissions under clause 4(b) even though this comes under a heading Restrictions. Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and cannot be anything else. Have you bought this up on cc-community? If not please could you. :-) Thanks. - Rob. 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] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 14:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Have you bought this up on cc-community? If not please could you. :-) That hadn't occurred to me. I'm afraid I tend to be reactive - time's a bit limited for anything else. Also I assume they have expensive (or at least skilled) lawyers who wouldn't be particularly pleased about having their licences criticised by an outsider. Also, I picked the US version since that's a fairly wide example of 3.0, and US legal drafting is (a) something I'm not qualified to do; and (b) (imho) horrid. But if you think it would be worth doing, then I'm happy to say so somewhere. Where's a good place to say it? -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under any other license than CC-BY-SA? I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not quite sure I understand this one. What do you mean by upload .. .under a licence? That doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean, does CC-BY-SA permit a contributor to contribute to OSMF under the existing contributor terms? (Answer: no) or do you mean something else? Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a little clearer. Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a CC-BY-SA license. Suppose I take that work and make from it a derivative work. Can I then give a copy of that derivative work to a third party who insists that it is provided to them under an agreement that is like the OSM Contributor Terms 1.2.4? In other words, if I've agreed to the current contributor terms, does the act of submitting CC-BY-SA licensed content to OSM voilate the terms of the CC-BY-SA license? As a bit of background, the process of modifying the OSM map is a three step process: 1) A user gets a subset of the map from the OSM web-site 2) The user makes modifications to that map on their own computer 3) The user gives the modifications back to OSMF via the OSM web-site. All content within the OSM database is published as CC-BY-SA 2.0. This extends comprehensively however it is obtained. There is no special route that content takes when someone wants to edit something. They request a subset of the map (step 1) which is downloaded to the user's computer where they then modify it (step 2). This subset is licensed under CC-BY-SA just like any other content from OSM and their modifications are a Derivative Work. When user has finished modifying the map they then send it back to OSM (step 3) and in doing so they affirm that the modified content is granted to OSMF under a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence, or whatever the version of the contributor terms are that they originally signed up to. It seems to me that the CTs get in the way of the loop that is supposed to exist that permits someone to get OSM content, modify it, and then give it back. If the content in this loop is CC-BY-SA licensed then putting up a CT gateway or barrier would appear to break that loop. If I grant you a license to use a creative work under CC-BY-SA, can you then give it to some third party under a different license? I don't see that CC-BY-SA permits this. Yes, for some values of a different licence. Eg, CC-BY-SA 3.0 (us version): I mean a *really* different license, one such as CT 1.2.4 which is known to be incompatible with CC-BY-SA 2.0. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s). Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which directly contradicts what is said in 4(b). Clearly what is intended is that there is a general rule against sublicensing, subject to a specific set of permissions under clause 4(b) even though this comes under a heading Restrictions. Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and cannot be anything else. This is probably a bit of a red-herring and I'm not sure it's relevant to the question at hand. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under any other license than CC-BY-SA? I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not quite sure I understand this one. What do you mean by upload .. .under a licence? That doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean, does CC-BY-SA permit a contributor to contribute to OSMF under the existing contributor terms? (Answer: no) or do you mean something else? Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a little clearer. Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a CC-BY-SA license. Suppose I take that work and make from it a derivative work. Can I then give a copy of that derivative work to a third party who insists that it is provided to them under an agreement that is like the OSM Contributor Terms 1.2.4? In other words, if I've agreed to the current contributor terms, does the act of submitting CC-BY-SA licensed content to OSM voilate the terms of the CC-BY-SA license? As a bit of background, the process of modifying the OSM map is a three step process: 1) A user gets a subset of the map from the OSM web-site 2) The user makes modifications to that map on their own computer 3) The user gives the modifications back to OSMF via the OSM web-site. All content within the OSM database is published as CC-BY-SA 2.0. This extends comprehensively however it is obtained. There is no special route that content takes when someone wants to edit something. They request a subset of the map (step 1) which is downloaded to the user's computer where they then modify it (step 2). This subset is licensed under CC-BY-SA just like any other content from OSM and their modifications are a Derivative Work. When user has finished modifying the map they then send it back to OSM (step 3) and in doing so they affirm that the modified content is granted to OSMF under a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence, or whatever the version of the contributor terms are that they originally signed up to. It seems to me that the CTs get in the way of the loop that is supposed to exist that permits someone to get OSM content, modify it, and then give it back. If the content in this loop is CC-BY-SA licensed then putting up a CT gateway or barrier would appear to break that loop. 80n see: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/315754580/history This is just silly. jumped-the-license yet? Are you going to start suing fellow OSM contributors now? Kindly sue me, you know my address. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a little clearer. Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a CC-BY-SA license. Suppose I take that work and make from it a derivative work. Can I then give a copy of that derivative work to a third party who insists that it is provided to them under an agreement that is like the OSM Contributor Terms 1.2.4? I think I've already answered this, but to be clear: (1) obviously you can do it (2) the act of contributing it is not an infringement of the CC-BY-SA licence, because that permits you to do all that is necessary (reproduce, incorporate etc) (3) CC-BY-SA does not give you the authority to sublicence under an arbitrary licence, so you would have no authority to give the licence in CT 1.2.4 or something like it and that grant of licence would be void as against the original copyright owner (though binding on you) (4) If you do sublicense along the lines of CT 1.2.4 then you may be authorising acts on behalf of the recipient which would be infringements of the copyright of the original copyright owner and that authorisation would be a primary infringement of copyright, actionable by the original copyright owner. (5) The no warranty clause of the CT probably means you are not liable in contract for your inability to licence. Does that help? In other words, if I've agreed to the current contributor terms, does the act of submitting CC-BY-SA licensed content to OSM voilate the terms of the CC-BY-SA license? In general, yes. But not if (for example) the content that was CC-BY-SA licensed belonged to the person you were submitting it to (because then you would not be authorising any infringement of copyright). As a bit of background, the process of modifying the OSM map is a three step process: 1) A user gets a subset of the map from the OSM web-site 2) The user makes modifications to that map on their own computer 3) The user gives the modifications back to OSMF via the OSM web-site. OK. That is what I thought and I have no doubts that *that* is fine. I.e. there is no contractual problem, for reasons I have already explained in this message and the last one. All content within the OSM database is published as CC-BY-SA 2.0. This extends comprehensively however it is obtained. There is no special route that content takes when someone wants to edit something. They request a subset of the map (step 1) which is downloaded to the user's computer where they then modify it (step 2). This subset is licensed under CC-BY-SA just like any other content from OSM and their modifications are a Derivative Work. When user has finished modifying the map they then send it back to OSM (step 3) and in doing so they affirm that the modified content is granted to OSMF under a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence, or whatever the version of the contributor terms are that they originally signed up to. As I said, a court would almost certainly construe the CT's so that the licence grant was limited to the changes made by the contributor. It seems to me that the CTs get in the way of the loop that is supposed to exist that permits someone to get OSM content, modify it, and then give it back. If the content in this loop is CC-BY-SA licensed then putting up a CT gateway or barrier would appear to break that loop. No. Although there are difficulties with the CT's if you want to incorporate data from other projects, the CT's do not create this prohblem. I understand your reasoning, but a court would not construe the CT's in that way. I mean a *really* different license, one such as CT 1.2.4 which is known to be incompatible with CC-BY-SA 2.0. Right. Hopefully I've made the situation clear. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a little clearer. Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a CC-BY-SA license. Suppose I take that work and make from it a derivative work. Can I then give a copy of that derivative work to a third party who insists that it is provided to them under an agreement that is like the OSM Contributor Terms 1.2.4? I think I've already answered this, but to be clear: (1) obviously you can do it I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please? What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously? And in what sense you mean can? (2) the act of contributing it is not an infringement of the CC-BY-SA licence, because that permits you to do all that is necessary (reproduce, incorporate etc) Ok (3) CC-BY-SA does not give you the authority to sublicence under an arbitrary licence, so you would have no authority to give the licence in CT 1.2.4 or something like it and that grant of licence would be void as against the original copyright owner (though binding on you) Ok, but can you explain what void as against the orginal copyright owner means? Does it mean the grant of license has no effect on the license granted by the owner of the orginal work? (4) If you do sublicense along the lines of CT 1.2.4 then you may be authorising acts on behalf of the recipient which would be infringements of the copyright of the original copyright owner and that authorisation would be a primary infringement of copyright, actionable by the original copyright owner. This point seems to me to be the crux of what I was trying to understand. But it leads to the subsiduary question, is the act of submitting content to OSM an act of distribution or publication as defined by CC-BY-SA? (5) The no warranty clause of the CT probably means you are not liable in contract for your inability to licence. This seems irrelevant. Does that help? Yes that helps a lot. In other words, if I've agreed to the current contributor terms, does the act of submitting CC-BY-SA licensed content to OSM voilate the terms of the CC-BY-SA license? In general, yes. But not if (for example) the content that was CC-BY-SA licensed belonged to the person you were submitting it to (because then you would not be authorising any infringement of copyright). As a bit of background, the process of modifying the OSM map is a three step process: 1) A user gets a subset of the map from the OSM web-site 2) The user makes modifications to that map on their own computer 3) The user gives the modifications back to OSMF via the OSM web-site. OK. That is what I thought and I have no doubts that *that* is fine. I.e. there is no contractual problem, for reasons I have already explained in this message and the last one. All content within the OSM database is published as CC-BY-SA 2.0. This extends comprehensively however it is obtained. There is no special route that content takes when someone wants to edit something. They request a subset of the map (step 1) which is downloaded to the user's computer where they then modify it (step 2). This subset is licensed under CC-BY-SA just like any other content from OSM and their modifications are a Derivative Work. When user has finished modifying the map they then send it back to OSM (step 3) and in doing so they affirm that the modified content is granted to OSMF under a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence, or whatever the version of the contributor terms are that they originally signed up to. As I said, a court would almost certainly construe the CT's so that the licence grant was limited to the changes made by the contributor. This seems like an important point. Can the changes be separated from the original work? If the changes cannot stand alone then they must be based on the original CC-BY-SA licensed work and are consequently a derivative work. The acid test here would be to demonstrate that such a contribution can be made with reference to the original work. If it can then it is clearly not a derivative work, but if it can only be made when the user has a copy of the orginal work then surely it must be a derivative? Or is there some other criteria that would better define / describe a derivative work? It seems to me that the CTs get in the way of the loop that is supposed to exist that permits someone to get OSM content, modify it, and then give it back. If the content in this loop is CC-BY-SA licensed then putting up a CT gateway or barrier would appear to break that loop. No. Although there are difficulties with the CT's if you want to incorporate data from other projects, the CT's do not
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 19:29, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please? What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously? And in what sense you mean can? Sorry, all I meant was that there is nothing to stop you *doing* something whether it is legal or not. There's a point to this pedantry (or at least part of one). Its often confusing to talk about being able to do X or Y when what's really important is what the legal consequences of it might be. I am sorry if I was less than clear. Understood. (3) CC-BY-SA does not give you the authority to sublicence under an arbitrary licence, so you would have no authority to give the licence in CT 1.2.4 or something like it and that grant of licence would be void as against the original copyright owner (though binding on you) Ok, but can you explain what void as against the orginal copyright owner means? Does it mean the grant of license has no effect on the license granted by the owner of the orginal work? I meant that the grant had no effect on the legal rights of the original copyright owner. It won't stop them from enforcing any right that they were able to enforce before the grant. This point seems to me to be the crux of what I was trying to understand. But it leads to the subsiduary question, is the act of submitting content to OSM an act of distribution or publication as defined by CC-BY-SA? Well, assuming we are worried only by copyright (since CC-BY-SA says nothing about database rights) then the first question is what acts by a contributor might require the permission of he copyright owner (or they would otherwise infringe) then the second question is: does CC-BY-SA give that permission. If I obtain a work subject to copyright then contributing it to the project involves: (i) an act of copying (or reproduction); (ii) possibly an authorisation; and (iii) possibly an act of making available to the public (depending on whether the work was public or not beforehand). For simplicity lets assume (iii) doesn't apply as it will not in most cases. So, reproduction requires the permission of the copyright owner. CC-BY-SA grants a right to to reproduce the Work, so reproduction by the contributor won't infringe the copyright owner's copyright because the contributor has permission via the CC licence. distribution and publication aren't terms used in UK copyright law for classes of activity that require permission of the copyright owner. You can find a list of acts restricted by copyright at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/16 Distribution is a term used in CC-BY-SA, but I guess this is effectively embraced by the term Copy in the UK legislation, as you cannot distribute something without first making a copy. Section 16 (2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says: Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright. From this it seems to me that giving of a copy of a CC-BY-SA licensed work to OSM by someone who has agreed to the contributor terms would violate this clause. They are authorising OSMF to do acts that are restricted by copyright and are not permitted by CC-BY-SA, and that therefor is an explicit infringment of copyright. Have I missed something here? distribution is a term used in the EU Copyright Directive (in article 4): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML and corresponds to s16(b) and s16(ba) in the Copyright Act. But you are more likely to be concerned with the rights in article 3 concerning communication to the public. distribution is a permitted act under CC-BY-SA under 3(d). Restricted by 4(a) as only being under this license (USians don't know how to spell :-). License, licence, דערלויבעניש ,דערלויבעניש ;) distribution doesn't appear to be defined under the CC licence, but it seems to me that the sense of 3(c) and 3(d) must be wide enough to permit distribution in the EU/UK sense. A contributor's uploading of a work would not, on its own, amount to a distribution it seems to me, Why not? They are making a copy and providing that copy to a third party. Is there anything in copyright legislation that permits a copy to be made in private, where in private is between two consenting but separate parties? If I copy something and then give it to someone else under a private agreement between the two of us, am I violating copyright? but the contributor is almost certainly engaged in a joint enterprise with others (including the OSMF) to do so and again almost certainly authorises it as well. So the distinction probably isn't very important. Does that help? Yes that helps a lot. I'm glad. I'm sorry I haven't had a chance
