Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed & post ODbL data removal plan
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Matt Amos wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > wrote: > > So my question is: > > > > 1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel > > does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental > > significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the > > question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine > > whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the > > CC-BY-SA in February. > > > > The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about > > this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits > > in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd > > also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of > > amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road > > network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby > > or adjoining elements". > > > > I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL > > itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed > > issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take > > such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work. > > it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for > their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this > doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we > would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good > lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about. > > if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice > pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it. > > > 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data > > removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have > > CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@ > > about this or on the wiki. What's the plan? > > yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of > course) is here: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 > > the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed > elements from the first version of the element, followed by a > referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the > relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion > of this on d...@. > > How will way splits and merges be handled? The history is only retained for one half of any way that is split, and the history is discarded for one of the two ways when merged. There is no information recorded about split and merge events, so you can never be sure that you have a complete history for any way. Unless you plan to do some very complex analysis that can spot that a block of nodes moved from one way to another then you don't have a complete history. The same is probably true for relations. Additionally, in one of the early api changes, when segments were combined into ways all of the history was discarded. I assume it was archived somewhere. Ways that were created from a series of segments will not have a complete history unless this archive is recovered and incorporated into the analysis. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed & post ODbL data removal plan
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 14:32, Matt Amos wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > wrote: >> So my question is: >> >> 1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel >> does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental >> significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the >> question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine >> whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the >> CC-BY-SA in February. >> >> The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about >> this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits >> in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd >> also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of >> amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road >> network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby >> or adjoining elements". >> >> I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL >> itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed >> issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take >> such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work. > > it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for > their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this > doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we > would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good > lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about. > > if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice > pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it. I've contacted Wikimedia legal about this. Since we'll be using OSM data this is a concern for Wikimedia. We'll see if they're interested in reviewing it. >> 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data >> removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have >> CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@ >> about this or on the wiki. What's the plan? > > yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of > course) is here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 > > the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed > elements from the first version of the element, followed by a > referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the > relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion > of this on d...@. Cool. I'll stay posted. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed & post ODbL data removal plan
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > So my question is: > > 1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel > does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental > significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the > question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine > whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the > CC-BY-SA in February. > > The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about > this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits > in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd > also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of > amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road > network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby > or adjoining elements". > > I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL > itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed > issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take > such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work. it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about. if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it. > 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data > removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have > CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@ > about this or on the wiki. What's the plan? yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of course) is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed elements from the first version of the element, followed by a referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion of this on d...@. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed & post ODbL data removal plan
Apologies in advance if this is fanning the flames on the currently ongoing license flamewar but I have a (hopefully) innocent query on the matter. Last year I asked what was the plan exactly for removing any CC-BY-SA content left in the database after the now-scheduled changeover: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-December/001778.html There's one closed issue that indirectly deals with this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms But the implementation plan doesn't seem to mention anything specific about how the data will be removed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan#Week_13 So my question is: 1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the CC-BY-SA in February. The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby or adjoining elements". I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work. 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@ about this or on the wiki. What's the plan? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
