subject:"\[OSM\-legal\-talk\] CTs and the 1 April deadline"

On 5 January 2011 22:28, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 Our mapping is (likely) illegal in North Korea and a few other

You have mentioned China, because mapping there is illegal without the
proper permits or whatever you need.

 regions. I bet we would not remove the data even if formally demanded
 by the North Korean Government etc.

Since OSM data is hosted in the UK this is mostly a strawman argument.
This is argument is only applicable for those that are collecting data
by survey, since they would be breaking the law.

 The language choice of language is intentional.

What exactly is your point here?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


John Smith wrote:
 I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis 
 in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such 
 data would be removed, not may be removed

As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write
we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms, whether the
illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing
copyright material without permission.

So when the CTs say that [OSMF] may delete that data, that's just a
warning to the user. It doesn't need to be a promise of we won't break the
law because that's taken as read - especially in the light of the clause
that starts off the whole of Section 1, We want to respect the intellectual
property rights of others.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891824.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


Ed Avis wrote:
 I think that actions speak louder than words

svn is that way 

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891828.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write
 we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms, whether the
 illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing
 copyright material without permission.

What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law? This
seems like comparing apples and oranges, of course you can't kill
people, well there is even exceptions there but that is getting off
topic.

The problem here is the fact that you want to do something,
incorporate OS data into OSM, however I can't see how the current CTs,
or even any of the rivisions would allow this unless you added some
guarantees of actions that would be taken in future if the license was
changed.

 So when the CTs say that [OSMF] may delete that data, that's just a
 warning to the user. It doesn't need to be a promise of we won't break the
 law because that's taken as read - especially in the light of the clause

Breaking contracts isn't usually breaking the law, however the law
can be invoked to remedy any breaches of that contract law, however
I'm not claiming that, I'm saying you can't even do something unless
you have at least some kind of policy on outcomes of certain events
occurring, in this case putting it in the CT contract would make a lot
of sense if you actually wanted to allow others to do something that
the CTs would otherwise prohibit.

 that starts off the whole of Section 1, We want to respect the intellectual
 property rights of others.

Which to me is typical cover your ass type clauses that exist in most
places, it doesn't state how or what would happen in cases that that
clause is breached.

This goes back to Steve Bennett's question about unagreeing to the CT,
it seems to me he breached the CTs the moment he agreed to them in
which case the CT would be null and void since nothing is specified as
to what should happen.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-05 Thread Ed Avis

Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:

If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why
are we not using it now?

I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we 
still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their 
data

Right!  And it would be much easier to get their agreement if you said 'there 
has
been a free and fair vote, and most people voted in favour of the change, so it
would be good for you to cooperate'... rather than 'we have already decided what
we want to do, now click Yes or be deleted from the project'.

Also, there is no binding 
definition on who is an active contributor (and thus has a right to 
vote). So this procedure really is only possible *after* everyone has 
signed up.

Indeed.  Surely the right thing to do, if we accept for the time being that
a centralized licensing model is the way forward, is to first sort out the
contributor terms and get general agreement, then have the discussion and vote
on whether to move to ODbL, dual-licensing, public domain or anything else.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


John Smith wrote:
 On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
  As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly
 write
  we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms
 [...]
 What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law?

Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England  Wales; and the
CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be
governed by English law.

From CDPA 1988 (there's lots more):

A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright
owner... distributes... to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the
owner of the copyright... an article which is, and which he knows or has
reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.

The penalty is up to ten years' imprisonment. Scary stuff.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892001.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 23:53, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England  Wales; and the
 CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be
 governed by English law.

I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a
reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying
music.

 From CDPA 1988 (there's lots more):

 A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright
 owner... distributes... to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the
 owner of the copyright... an article which is, and which he knows or has
 reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.

 The penalty is up to ten years' imprisonment. Scary stuff.

Would that penalty be for personal or commercial infringement?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 6 January 2011 00:29, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
 infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a
 reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying
 music.

... being sued to the same extent outside the US...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


John Smith wrote:
 I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
 infringement as a criminal offence...

It's an offence in EW whether personal or commercial. For a business, it's
an offence to distribute copyrighted material without licence; for an
individual, it's an offence to distribute it (as I quoted) to such an
extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright.

 Would that penalty be for personal or commercial infringement?

Either.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892124.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-05 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM)

On 4 January 2011 23:33, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
 That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have
 to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.
 However, is there any guarantee that OSMF will remove such data
 first?

 I'm not quite sure I see your point. There's no guarantee that the OSMF
 board won't infringe the OS OpenData licence, sure, but there's also no
 guarantee that the OSMF board won't go berserk and start gunning down
 Google's executives. Both would be illegal. There are already laws about not
 shooting Google executives - we don't need to explicitly add them to the
 Contributor Terms.

Setting aside clause 1 of the new revision of the contributor terms (
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1 ) as that
seems to conflict with the later terms, it's my understanding that
clauses 2-4 have the following effect:

Clause 2 requires contributors to make a large grant of IP rights to
OSMF on any content added to OSM. I believe that the intent here is
actually that you only grant OSMF the rights necessary for them to act
as described in clauses 3 and 4. (A strict reading would say that you
need to grant them all the rights, and in return they agree only to
use them as described in clauses 3 and 4 -- this stricter
interpretation is problematic as it would mean you could essentially
only add PD data, or data that IP owners had given explicit permission
for, but this is by-the-by for the current argument.)

Lets now consider what rights are necessary for OSMF to act as
described in clauses 3 and 4. Since the data will be initially
distributed under CC-By-SA and ODbL, you must have sufficient rights
to allow the data you contribute to be distributed in this way. Since
there is also the possibility of OSM content later being distributed
under a license that requires no downstream attribution or share-alike
provisions, then you must have sufficient rights to be able to give
that right to so distribute the data to OSMF. So if the license you
have data under contains share-alike or viral-attribution clauses then
you do not have the necessary rights to grant to OSMF, and therefore
it cannot be contributed under the terms of clause 2.

However, I'm not sure how clause 1 fits into this. Regardless of what
is says about not having to guarantee that the data is compatible with
current or future licenses, clause 2 still requires you to grant OSMF
rights that would make it so. The only obvious resolution I can see is
if clause 2 is meant to refer only to the contributor's own IP rights
in the contents they submit -- but that's not what the current wording
says: You hereby grant to OSMF a ... licence to do any act ... over
anything within the Contents.

If it is meant to only cover the contributor's own IP rights in the
submitted contents, then I think the wording needs top be clarified.
But then I'd be happy that you'd be able to use OS OpenData under
those CTs. (Though I still think it's debatable whether the OS
OpenData License is compatible with ODbL -- the last I heard directly
from OS is that they consider that it isn't. But that's sort of
irrelevant if the CTs don't require you to guarantee it. And hopefully
OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, which is
explicitly compatible with ODbL.)

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-05 Thread Francis Davey

To answer Robert's question. In my view clause 2 needs - and I hope
that it will include in its final version - a limitation that you only
grant a licence in respect of any rights that you have.

The aim (I believe) is this:

* the contributor licenses very broadly OSMF to permit them to use any
rights (in copyright or database right) that the contributor has in
the data contributed

* whether or not the contributor has any intellectual property rights
in the data contributed, they are asked not to contribute data if that
contribution would infringe someone else's IP rights, but they are
expressly told they don't have to guarantee that is the case (because
the contributor won't in general be a lawyer)

* OSMF promises to use data in a restricted set of ways (as set out in
clause 3 and 4).

In order for this to work as planned, clause 2 needs some words of
limitation eg and to the extent that you are able to do so.

I realise I owe a response to a much earlier question about whether
and to what extent contributing data that is later used in breach of
an IP right might impact on the contributor (short answer: I doubt
there's any risk). I'm just rather busy right now. Sorry.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-05 Thread andrzej zaborowski

On 5 January 2011 13:24, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

 If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined,
 why
 are we not using it now?

 I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we still
 need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their data
 because they have not signed up to any CT that would allow us to do so even
 if they are in the minority. Also, there is no binding definition on who is
 an active contributor (and thus has a right to vote). So this procedure
 really is only possible *after* everyone has signed up.

There's no mandate or binding definitions for many things today, yet
things (like license change) are happening, so I don't see a reason
why it should be impossible for the OSMF to assume this definition
(since it's well-thought-out) and follow that procedure.  I think it's
mostly a matter of good will.

One reason that I have to recognise for not doing a real vote, only
the new terms acceptation, is if OSMF thinks it's too much bother for
users and too many difficult to understand questions will bore people
who are really just interested in mapping.  But I think it *should* be
possible for every contributor to easily opt-in for a vote about all
the important things currently decided by LWG or the board, like
whether to stop accepting contributions under the old license, when,
and most importantly whether enough people have accepted the CT to
remove old data.  But I fear that this will be decided in a small
group similarly to the blocking of non-CT contributors in Apr.  The
original OSMF all-members vote basically asked if the OSMF should
proceed with such and such procedure but I would assume (and perhaps
not only me) that the intent of the voted question was should we
start and see how well it goes and at different points we look at it
and see if we still want to proceed.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-05 Thread Mike Collinson

I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like to run it 
by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap and similar 
situations.

Here is the CT version that we are looking at formally releasing: 

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU

I am checking through it for any missed drafting snafus and would like to get 
in one further informal opinion, but hope to make a formal release very soon.

Mike

At 03:25 PM 5/01/2011, Francis Davey wrote:
To answer Robert's question. In my view clause 2 needs - and I hope
that it will include in its final version - a limitation that you only
grant a licence in respect of any rights that you have.

The aim (I believe) is this:

* the contributor licenses very broadly OSMF to permit them to use any
rights (in copyright or database right) that the contributor has in
the data contributed

* whether or not the contributor has any intellectual property rights
in the data contributed, they are asked not to contribute data if that
contribution would infringe someone else's IP rights, but they are
expressly told they don't have to guarantee that is the case (because
the contributor won't in general be a lawyer)

* OSMF promises to use data in a restricted set of ways (as set out in
clause 3 and 4).

In order for this to work as planned, clause 2 needs some words of
limitation eg and to the extent that you are able to do so.

I realise I owe a response to a much earlier question about whether
and to what extent contributing data that is later used in breach of
an IP right might impact on the contributor (short answer: I doubt
there's any risk). I'm just rather busy right now. Sorry.

-- 
Francis Davey

___
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] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-05 Thread Frederik Ramm


Mike,


I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like
to run it by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap
and similar situations.


The major change in all this, compared to the earlier versions, is the 
concept that you may now contribute data that is not re-licensable, 
right? I.e. while we require that you agree to the CT, you can still add 
data that is, say, some form of share-alike only which would then have 
to be removed later. Is that correct?


Question 1:

How would we, later, during some form of relicensing, know which is 
which? Is there some way, or even requirement, for the contributing user 
to tell us which license any derived material that he's contributing 
comes under?


Question 2:

Say we have a die-hard my contributions are mine alone person who 
wants to be asked for his ok in any future license change, thereby 
circumventing the usual if 2/3 of active mappers agree then your data 
remains in the new database rule.


Could someone, of that disposition, let's call him A, not simply do the 
following: Make a contract with person B that says Dear B, you may use 
my data but only under ODBL 1.0 and nothing else; then instruct B to 
upload the stuff to OSM. Now the data is in OSM, but in the event of any 
later license change, B (and therefore A) would have to be consulted.


Crucially, this restriction would also apply should A ever lose 
interest, or die, or be otherwise unreachable. This would effectively 
kill the whole reason why we have the license change rule in the first 
place.


Suggestion:

If my above thoughts are correct, and if this cannot be remedied - i.e. 
if we have to accept that there will always be fully CT compatible 
data and other, not relicensable without agreement from rights holder 
data - then may I suggest that we devise a way to flag such data in the 
database, and to somehow make the restricted-use data inert so that we 
don't (again, over the years) create a situation where many contributors 
erect their work on a foundation that may be taken away from them at any 
time?


I.e., when you upload something then you should explicitly say: What 
I'm uploading here is to the best of my knowledge free of rights of 
others, or you would say What I'm uploading here is compatible with 
OSM now but subject to third-party IP rights. In the latter case, 
others could either not edit your data at all (except of course deleting 
it), or they would at least see some kind of indication in their editor 
that basically tells them this data is not as free as we'd like it to 
be, and if they possess enough raw material to replace the data with 
something fully CT compatible, they should do so.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-05 Thread Ed Avis

Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:

Could someone, of that disposition, let's call him A, not simply do the 
following: Make a contract with person B that says Dear B, you may use 
my data but only under ODBL 1.0 and nothing else; then instruct B to 
upload the stuff to OSM. Now the data is in OSM, but in the event of any 
later license change, B (and therefore A) would have to be consulted.

This does seem to be possible from a strictly legalistic point of view.

I think that in the CTs (as in other things) we should concentrate more on the
spirit of the agreement than on trying to armour-plate it in legalese.  It would
be better to have a free and obvious choice:

  (A) I am happy to license my data under the currently used licences, and I am
  also happy for the OSMF to relicense it in the future.  (I understand that
  the OSMF has agreed to hold a vote of active contributors in such a case.)

  (B) I will contribute data under the current licences but I would like to be
  asked again if some different licence is chosen in the future.  (I am 
aware
  that both CC-BY-SA and ODbL have upgrade clauses of various kinds, so it
  is possible for new versions of these licences to be published and used
  without requiring additional permission from me.)

Given such a choice and the appropriate community expectations, most people 
would
choose option (A) if they trust the OSMF to do the right thing.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of
 relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless.

This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is
owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony
that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a
movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at
the end of it, however the CTs introduce, with respect to licensing,
an uncertainty about the license the project will operate in future.

Or to put this in context, how many people would contribute to a GPL
project that has a CT with a similar relicensing clause, meaning to
allow future contributors to make all kinds of licensing decisions on
behalf of those that laid the ground work to switch to a BSD license.

Grant and others keep going on about reading the spirit of the CT more
than the wording, but at present OSM uses a share a like license
(similar to GPL) but might switch to a PD/BSD license in future, this
uncertainty will turn many in the software world off, as I keep asking
why is the majority of OSM software so proudly offered under GPL and
not BSD if you want things to be future proofed?

Why is asking OSM(F) for some license certainty such a bad thing, it's
this kind of statement that would define if you like, the types of
people willing to contribute. Take for example Frederik's post a
couple of months ago about no longer contributing to OSM if it wasn't
even remotely possible for OSM to be PD in future. Then you have the
new sign up stats, I'm not sure how many have ticked the PD box, but
I'm guessing most don't bother to read what that tick box is for and
tick it because they're so used to I agree boxes at the bottom of
sign up forms, and not expecting that it does something completely
different.

Alternatively you also have SteveC who has made comments about not
supporting a change to a license without share a like.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Stephan Knauss


On 04.01.2011 08:53, Steve Bennett wrote:

The OSMF board mandates the LWG to enforce mandatory acceptance of the
CT and ODBL in order to edit the database by March 31st.



Have I misunderstood the situation, or is that pretty much the size of
it: on April 1st, all Nearmap-derived data (and presumably data from
certain other providers who also use a strict CC-BY-SA licence) will
be wiped?


you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in 
order to continue to EDIT.
eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless 
compatible with CT.


Stephan

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 4 January 2011 18:40, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
 you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in
 order to continue to EDIT.
 eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible
 with CT.

Which brings up the other point of contention about the 2/3rds of
active contributors that others have pointed out, namely that you lock
out people from contributing further that may object to further
license change there by being able to do things like vote stacking to
suit your agenda...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Anthony

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
 guaranteed a right to contribute.
 []
 But what could we do?

 Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
 terms.  Even an opt-out arrangement would be better than the current
 one, where 2 people with 1 edit each get to override 1 person with
 10,000 edits.

 +1

 On the surface that would seem to give a better indication of if a
 license change should be adopted or not, but I agree with Frederik's
 point that pointless or abusive edits shouldn't make someone be
 eligible as an active contributor either when it comes to influencing
 major changes... What if those 10,000 edits were duplicating ways
 simply to up their stats so as to have more influence over things...

Then you let them opt out and don't worry about it.  If their ways
aren't useful, then they don't have any more influence over things.  I
never suggest weighting votes by number of edits.  That wouldn't work
for much the reason you've explained above.  You can't come up with an
algorithm for measuring quality of edits, but if you let people
opt-out of changes, then the OSMF board can decide on the quality and
weight of those edits, and whether or not they outweigh the need to
switch to the new license.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 01/04/11 16:02, Anthony wrote:

But what could we do?


Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.


No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must 
have the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they 
should not participate in the first place.


I don't want provisional contributions that can be withdrawn at any 
later time. Such would only lead to a better to delete what others have 
done and re-make it than to build on their work attitude. Such an 
opt-out clause would mean: We're not a community building something 
together, we're a pot where everyone can temporarily put their personal 
contribution but remove it at any time.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Rob Myers wrote:
On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
Terms.
[citation needed]
(http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)

I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.

== ODbL ==

The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be
maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of
ODbL 4.3 is that reasonably calculated imposes a downstream attribution
requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your
Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources,
you haven't reasonably calculated that any person exposed to it will be
aware of the database and the licence.)

As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another
file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an
ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the
attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a
substantial amount of OS OpenData.

== Contributor Terms ==

AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2
revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1). The
CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good
suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough.

The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4
below. The and 4 is new (added at my request).

Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
licence doesn't give you.

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Anthony

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Such an opt-out clause
 would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot
 where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it
 at any time.

On the rest, we're going to just have to agree to disagree.  But I
think this depiction of an opt-out clause is quite unfair.  An opt-out
clause doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at any time.  In
fact, it doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at all.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 01/04/11 15:17, John Smith wrote:

Or better yet, change active contributor to active participant and
include things like genuine mailing list posts or wiki edits or ...
rather than restricting interested parties to only those who can
edit...


I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For 
example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe 
the would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on 
the Wiki any more etc.etc.)


The *main* reason for the active-contributor definition is that we need 
to exclude those who are dead, unreachable, or have lost interest, from 
the decision-making process. In my personal opinion, if someone should 
stop contributing to the data for some personal reason - e.g. he doesn't 
like the OSMF chairman's haircut - but that person still demonstrates 
some kind of interest in the project - e.g. by campaigning for a change 
of haircut on the mailing lists - then they should be included.


(I'd still like some wording that says they must have been active 
contributors at some time in the past - someone who joined the project 
*only* to discuss haircuts might not be the kind of contributor we seek.)


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 01:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
 this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
 (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
 cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
 practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another
 file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements and the CT
allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses how can you
link back to a list of sources to attribute?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 01:54, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For
 example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe the
 would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on the Wiki
 any more etc.etc.)

Either way you look at it, someone contributing crap would be
eligible, while someone contributing reasonable content to the wiki
would be excluded. How is that reasonable?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Tobias Knerr

Anthony wrote:
 Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
 terms.

It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the
Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data
ownership.

The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building
a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to
each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between
my data, your data and their data.
As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective,
not individual, decisions.

I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or
edited that hasn't been edited by others as well. And with the
increasing density of contributors, this effect will become even more
evident.

Working together like this means relying on others' contributions still
being there tomorrow, even if we change the license again. Therefore, I
could not support a regulation as requested by you, where an individual
mapper could pull out their contributions (and thus remove the
foundation for others' contributions) in the event of a license change.

Tobias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 02:16, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
 reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or

That's not the impression I get, take this comment for example:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-December/007385.html

The only difference between Anthony and others is the scale of what
they might think as their's it seems to me...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


John Smith wrote:
 That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
 if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements

They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

 and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses

It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889244.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Peter Miller

On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.

== ODbL ==

As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
another
file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

== Contributor Terms ==

The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4
below. The and 4 is new (added at my request).

Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
licence doesn't give you.

cheers
Richard

Thank you for the details Richard. However... on this one I have decided to
stay out of any legal discussions and just wait for a clear statement
directly from the licensing group. To date I haven't had that clarification
and private discussions with a member of the group seems to indicate that
the OS would need to adopt Open Government License for it to work and I can
find no statement on the web to say that they are doing that..

As soon as I have confirmation from the license working group then I will
accept the CTs and will then concentrate on getting the foundation to sort
out its Articles of Association.

Regards,

Peter

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Anthony

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 Anthony wrote:
 Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
 terms.

 It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
 philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the
 Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data
 ownership.

Correct.  Sort of.  I insist on not using the idea of collective
ownership.  More on what I mean by that in my final paragraph.

 The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building
 a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to
 each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between
 my data, your data and their data.
 As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective,
 not individual, decisions.

That most certainly is not a natural consequence of a collective
effort, though.  When people collaborate on a film, for instance, they
are making a collective effort, but they don't then allow a majority
(or supermajority) to relicense the film under any license they deem
appropriate.

And besides, there is another alternative to individual ownership and
collective ownership, and that is no ownership.  If we don't want
individual ownership, that's fine with me, but that means the data
should be public domain.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net

To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

John Smith wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. In your opinion, what would be the
minimum license rendered images could be licensed as?

An attribution-only licence - CC-BY, for example.

If attribution will also be required on tiles, you have a chain of
attribution that can be followed

Right, yes.

if data is licensed in future so
that at least produced data doesn't have an attribution requirement

I don't think it can be - the agreement between OSMF and the Contributor 
to

attribute is perpetual, rather than being subject to any future licence
change - but even if it were, CT 1.2.2 puts the onus on OSMF to remove the
data in the case of incompatibility, rather than on the Contributor to

Actually it does not put the onus on OSMF to remove the data.  It says they 
may remove the data, it doesn't say they will remove the data, or even 
that they will make any attempt to remove it.  Indeed I'm sure it has been 
argued by others that putting the onus on OSMF to remove the data is placing 
too high a burden on OSMF.

David

safeguard against all future possibilities.

Richard

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889351.html

Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Peter Miller writes:

I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used the
Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with the new
license. I have therefore not accepted the new terms because I can't.

Why did you not create a new account you will use only to commit data that 
is compatible with CT and ODbL?

Note that until the revised CT's are adopted, and the preamble to the CT's 
which state that they apply to  your existing  contributions it is 
impossible for someone, who in the past has contributed data which is 
incompatible with the CT's, to create a new account which complies with the 
CT's.

David

This still does not resolve the mashup of compatible and incompatible data 
you entered in the past. As it seams that incompatible sources are located 
to a specific geographical region you could select your other edits and 
upload them under a clean account.

Stephan

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 04:08, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
Why did you not create a new account you will use only to commit data 
that

is compatible with CT and ODbL?

Perhaps because the current CT offered didn't distinguish that
contributions were per account, although I believe this oversight was
fixed in revisions, but hasn't been offered to existing or new
contributors, unless the sign-up process was changed recently.

It hadn't been changed as of lunchtime today.  However I do hope it is 
changed before 1 April.

David

___
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] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any
data sources that went into making that database.

As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database).

To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a, DATABASE NAME would be defined by
the database provider (in this case OSMF). For the Derivative Database that
comprises OSM original user contributions and some extracts from OS
OpenData, this name could include the attribution required by OS.

It also provides no explicit requirement for any downstream users to
attribute the source of the produced work

I think it's reasonably well attested that we disagree on that. :)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_of_maps_in_Wikipedia_and_Wikitravel
would seem to contradict your later assertion that produced works
can only be licensed under an attribution license.

The reply in green (which I believe is from lawyers retained by OSMF at one
point, though not from ODC) says no license restrictions, yes, but it then
goes on to contradict itself by saying ...although notice must be given.
The latter sounds like attribution to me but, again, I think it's reasonably
well attested that we disagree.

That requirement is only for OSMF to provide attribution when they
distribute the OSM data. It does not force OSMF to require other
downstream data users to provide similar attribution when they
distribute derivative works / databases. So this clause would not
stop OSMF releasing the data as PD as long as OSMF still maintains
an appropriate attribution page themselves.

That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to
delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.

Given the past few months I think it would be difficult for OSMF to argue
that it wasn't aware of the issue. So when David says It says they 'may'
remove the data, I'd add the follow-up ...and if they choose not to, they
are well aware they are likely to be sued, and on their heads be it.

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889691.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline