Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-11-02 23:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com: We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for Actually the Italian Government has designed their open data license (IODL) to be compatible with OdbL: http://www.dati.gov.it/content/italian-open-data-license-domande-e-risposte (I've heard they did this explicitly because of OSM). If it makes sense for a PA to use a share-alike license instead of PD is a different kettle of fish... cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a licensing issue. If we add up the cost of all the time company representatives have spent trying to get OSM to change its licensing *a second time*, it would have been a lot cheaper for them to get together and just hire a lawyer who knew what they were doing. 1. I wish this was true. 2. I wish you described the problem. There's a brake on adoption we put on OpenStreetMap by way of share alike for no tangible benefit. This is not just about shaping the OSM license to taste for certain 'company representatives' but about the overall growth potential of the project which is limited by its applications. All we have in favor of share alike is fear, and the fact that we've used it so far. We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for, but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the project because of share alike. I've stated this argument before and I do understand that for many in the community share alike represents an important protection for the project. I don't follow this sentiment at all because of all the reasons Florian laid out in his response [1]. But I do understand the desire for a strong, lasting and independent OpenStreetMap. Maybe there's a way to think outside of the box of a license and come up with guarantees or principles the OpenStreetMap project would want to have to protect its interests. Thinking out loud. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-October/008025.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/11/14 02:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote: We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for, Then clearly OMS should have stuck with BY-SA for the database, as that did gain third party data releases. but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the project because of share alike. If switching to a license that is more amenable to proprietary use hasn't stopped increasing numbers of people walking away then, again, the project should have stuck with BY-SA. So the stronger share-alike license got more of the positive results that you are blaming the weaker license for not achieving, and caused less of the alleged harm you are attributing to it. That sounds like an argument for stronger copyleft, not weaker. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUVtFBAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ3SoIAJ0NApsIcSEMUSiqnhvnY3fF u3vY3n5MU5gNrJV9WxSwLObyV2imyMPfbZhlF2OPQCXp8D4uN6Mot+9/cD7F7nan pjb0YIeHC0oruQrShoRTXFaHVCHBK7N4zOfhT+aI+gbavToYcGgcU4y38kM+DLml M7HA246sFny7NjckGJqmyDoOp/U0Nhw3YHFII1ZfG7j1yohYSrVE40WE2/D0oPs/ pExMVktZija/rG9moXwyQyd/vdAMizcFlbpfPEAWDyYDpKOn0+l+WWK6Oiw2626r ekKYAq+YDNf8lWl3o5SzmJS0uLLlzG/mSOK1+OUL7oq69t4HpGCQ471PvMHorRc= =NhmN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
Hi, On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:02:27PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. Share Alike is the expression for fear of abuse. In my mind there cant be any abuse of OSM data. I want the OSM Data to be available everywhere and anyone. And it needs to be a no brainer which it isnt right now. For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a licensing issue. ANY restriction is a problem for adoption as one can see e.g. from the discussion about geocoding data. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database Contents Licence (DbCL) [2]. It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper at [3], which said that uncertainty over the content licence was a problem for downstream users. When I went to check what the content licence was, I was unable to find any definitive information where I would expect to find it; i.e. at http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ or http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License . The latter two seem to suggest that the OSM Contributor Terms [4] act as a content licence, but I don't see how that's possible, since the Contributor Terms are concerned with people giving rights and assurances to OSMF, rather than OSMF providing rights to data users. The Contributor Terms themselves mention the DbCL as one of the possible licences OSMF can use, but don't actually say that OSMF are using it for current data downloads. So can I enquire as to exactly what the content licence is for OSM's geodata, and suggest that it is made clearer on the pages linked above? I guess some people may argue that the individual data items in OSM are facts and so aren't copyrightable anyway. However, it's not obvious to me that this is necessarily the case for all the data items (there are certainly some things in OSM that are subject to creative judgement) and it would seem that uncertainty over the content licence is a real issue for data users. Even if an explicit content licence may not be necessary, it would surely be good to soecify one like the DbCL anyway. Thanks, Robert. [1] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1-0/ [3] http://spatiallaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-odbl-and-openstreetmap-analysis-and.html [4] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of OpenStreetMap data. Does it really deserve any more attention than that? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active in other geospatial associations... so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at first glance looks like an expert for this topic... cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
I am unpaid nobody in the context of last two emails on this thread. In my opinion, it sure would be nice for users (not contributors alone) if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, from my point of view, that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible. Thank you for giving me a voice. On Oct 29, 2014 7:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active in other geospatial associations... so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at first glance looks like an expert for this topic... cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-10-29 13:47 GMT+01:00 Sachin Dole sd...@genvega.com: ... if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, ..., that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible. actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. It's congenital, not viral. It propagates by inheritance, not contagion. ;-) - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUPtbAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ91cH/1jbALOpOXN2kjNmTI1WkpuO nk4HYxHMkuuGhJTjQ9FYFAAhDMw89DJ7AUMCP6AdjPCxQzlysgiOCyE5I/398MJi qo3QWDlaWoV7MMiUzZuICwzbH3+LJAqFx886LLr/GSaH0pLkI0FsS0jZ1oMg+yaC g7vu44F0KG4EPXZlfeJNp5ameCQTl4FqTBH6aB8ru35+Tu4w2TMbbbFDS/+XQg1A Wc7uhOzUUA8ktTqZFPdH9dlbHE5Y9an9y140K+MoBXYvId9UEaLhV6PeOA/kYOA7 luYbUePtjX9EALbqtipslaAXVGQdfmtaJd159AHKEdRGX8wX4tOWCWSmxl6C2V4= =ejQk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of OpenStreetMap data. Does it really deserve any more attention than that? Uncertainty is simply a term of art that means obvious impediments to my sense of entitlement. Likewise, lack of clarity means haven't read the contributor terms. - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUP19AAoJECciMUAZd2dZJXMIAJLhG+9jU8qf82oxH2b3T5XU jgCGd7ZovjUZmANZTZ9yjhjm4Um5Ch4iv6rAG2SftF4wEadzV4fVVbY4dE/QbEUr 8Z7hNW48Qs888ifXR7jrekbtKFox1jTKAWmQcZAUW9zMsKPzyVPk/dLTd1gBg+d0 vVNSAmdexOUZAbCksrHUTp4fdJhm8l+qwPlb43hVm4bLxp3WpIv32Mlb7PoWPgt8 /LIn+roW1R7ryFjcTaSZEseKNIX3rpo78p6UxbBFyRTdrufI7+YT4Zbf/M2tk+UX ePwEcjuTpWhoNOKA7Gng51T2zTBhfDY+Fw6EhzfowbDZ9162yod8vg98/qv61XE= =nOHH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
