Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
If you cc0 your work anyone can relicence it. So do that and then contribute it under the cts and there isn't a problem. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 07:49:18AM +0200, Michael Kugelmann wrote: So you declare that you don't matter what happens with you data: everybody can do anything he likes. This means the OSMF can take all your data and publish it under any any licence they want. Question: which problem do you have with the ODBL? You can accept the ODBL/CT and additionally check the PD flag = that's exactly what you want according to your Wiki page. I wont accept the CT as it grant special rights to the OSMF. I would be happy to check a box saying my edits are CC0/PD. But why on earth should i grant the OSMF the right to relicense? Its about trust and the OSMF did nothing to gain my trust in the whole process. So right now i cant continue editing because my login is blocked as i dont grant special rights to the OSMF. BTW: to set the whole OSM database under PD is not capable of winning a majority = no choice. This is just a myth - There has been no poll of the contributers which license would be acceptable. And a Forum on a SOTM to discuss already thought of license content is not a poll, not an open result process. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de _ 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] I want my access back
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:45:41PM -0400, Anthony wrote: So what's the problem? You don't want to grant OSMF the right to relicense. OSMF doesn't want your edits without the right to relicense them. Why do you want to force your edits, *which they don't want*, upon them? I have a problem with the OSMF saying it represents OSM. But at least it does not represent me nor have i seen a formal delegation of the OSMs future to the OSMF. So i see multiple problems with the whole relicensing process: - No legitimation of the OSMF e.g. vote by all contributers or delegation of powers to the OSMF by the contributers - No Contributers formal poll or majority to a) a license change b) license content So please dont state that the OSMF represents the contributers. It does not. And if we see the contributers beeing OSM so the OSMF neither represents OSM. So even if you disagree on parts you might accept that some of the contributers feel exspelled from OSM by the OSMF which some of us feel is a very nebulous foundation which is not really connected to our daily work but still requests all powers. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:06:48PM -0400, Anthony wrote: Could they do things another way? Sure, they could. But they've chosen not to. If you don't like it, don't contribute. I have contributed a lot for nearly 3 years and now i am blocked out so i am not contributing anymore and i ceased all my OSM work already. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 15/08/11 22:16, Florian Lohoff wrote: I have contributed a lot for nearly 3 years and now i am blocked out so i am not contributing anymore and i ceased all my OSM work already. Since your contributions are PD and therefore CT compatible I don't understand what the problem is. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Nobody has claimed that everything leading up to the license changed was handled perfectly, with hindsight I would suspect that a couple of things would have been handled differently by everybody involved. But I have not seen anything that would indicate that the outcome of any such better (from a formal point of view) process would have been different than what we got from what actually happened (ok, naturally we would now be arguing over what a valid contributor vote should have been 4 years ago, but it would still be arguing over process, not the result). Could we, just perhaps, at last get over the continuous bickering about stuff that transpired a long time ago and move on? With other words: please get a life. Simon Am 15.08.2011 23:15, schrieb Florian Lohoff: On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:45:41PM -0400, Anthony wrote: So what's the problem? You don't want to grant OSMF the right to relicense. OSMF doesn't want your edits without the right to relicense them. Why do you want to force your edits, *which they don't want*, upon them? I have a problem with the OSMF saying it represents OSM. But at least it does not represent me nor have i seen a formal delegation of the OSMs future to the OSMF. So i see multiple problems with the whole relicensing process: - No legitimation of the OSMF e.g. vote by all contributers or delegation of powers to the OSMF by the contributers - No Contributers formal poll or majority to a) a license change b) license content So please dont state that the OSMF represents the contributers. It does not. And if we see the contributers beeing OSM so the OSMF neither represents OSM. So even if you disagree on parts you might accept that some of the contributers feel exspelled from OSM by the OSMF which some of us feel is a very nebulous foundation which is not really connected to our daily work but still requests all powers. Flo ___ 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] I want my access back
Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmannmichaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: May I remind you a litte bit on the history of the licence change... (all as far as I know) While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? To my recollection, there was not a question on what specific license we wanted, but what kind of elements the license should have. Attribution and Share-Alike where two elements an OSM license should have. Just to be clear: I was not part of the panel, nor was I actively involved with the Foundation at that time. Cheers, Henk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Hi Henk, [Henk Hoff, 14.08.2011, 14:25]: If you talk about future license changes as defined in the CT: active contributors are defined as contributors who have edited the map in at least 3 different months (don't have to be consecutively) in the previous year. Exactly. So someone who has contributed for several years, but only during two months of the previous year, is not allowed to vote. Also, the sysadmins reserve the right to block the edits right of accounts (as they are currently doing). They decided not to give us assurances that our editing right will not be blocked again in the future, e.g. to enforced an update to the CT. This means that the right to vote is directly dependent upon the behaviour of the sysadmins. And some of them have made it very clear in emails to this list that they are against changing this. Olaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
[Henk Hoff, 14.08.2011, 19:00]: If contributing in 3 different months during the last year would be too much of a burden, are you then really involved? If the sysadmins block your account because they want to force through a future CT update that you deem problematic, then it is simply not possible to contribute in 3 different months. The situation would change dramatically if the sysadmins were to guarantee that they will never remove edit rights as they currently do. At least one sysadmin has stated on this list that the legal team should ignore my concern about the wording of the CT, claiming that the sysadmins will always act responsibly. At the same time, he said that the sysadmins are not responsible for the action of blocking my edit right because the legal team has asked them to do so. I interpret this to mean that no one is willing to act with responsibility, and that my concern is therefore valid. Olaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 14/08/11 18:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: If the sysadmins block your account The sysadmins have not blocked your account. The system has been changed to implement the licence changeover plan. You may not like the plan, but neither its form nor the effects of its implementation are actions that the sysadmins have initiated against you. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Op 14-08-11 19:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schreef: [Henk Hoff, 14.08.2011, 19:00]: If contributing in 3 different months during the last year would be too much of a burden, are you then really involved? If the sysadmins block your account because they want to force through a future CT update that you deem problematic, then it is simply not possible to contribute in 3 different months. The situation would change dramatically if the sysadmins were to guarantee that they will never remove edit rights as they currently do. Sysadmins are not just blocking accounts. If you're referring to the fact that you haven't agreed with the CT and therefore cannot edit anymore ... That's part of the democratic process, not the sysadmins. There has been an long and extensive process in getting where we are now. There have been polls with the community, there has been a vote amongst the OSMF membership, etc. All point to a (large) majority accepting the new CT / license etc. You may not like the outcome, like you may not like your current government. But it's a fair and democratic process. The CT is not going away. It's now up to you whether you accept the CT or not. If not, I'll advise you to select another hobby. I invite you to accept the CT. Then we can all work on making OSM the most acurate and detailed map which is also openly and freely available; so extraodinary and amazing new things can be created for all to use. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 14 August 2011 22:39, Henk Hoff o...@toffehoff.nl wrote: Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmannmichaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? To my recollection, there was not a question on what specific license we wanted, but what kind of elements the license should have. Attribution and Share-Alike where two elements an OSM license should have. This is one of the areas where I think the licence-change process has fallen down - it's never been particularly clear when decisions have been made. Like many people, I wasn't involved with OSM at that time (I discovered it later that year). If the consensus from the the meeting was that we wanted attribution and share-alike, was that decision clearly noted down somewhere? Fast forward to mid 2009 or even 2010, and it wasn't clear to me or many other people that we'd actually made that decision. When I joined the various debates in legal-talk and other places, I was still under the impression that we (as general contributors) could have a say about that. Not that I necessarily think it should be different, but I was under the impression that it was still up for discussion. There are a lot of things that now seem to have been decided quite a while ago, but it was never clear to many people that they had been decided already. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
on 12.08.2011 23:34, Nic Roets wrote: If the OSMF wanted to hear all the different opinions on the license, they would not have formed the LWG, because legal-talk is a reasonable aggregation point for that. There are a lot of different ways to discuss these days. A mailing list is one way. But other guys prefer a forum. And there a lot of other ways. So which one is the best and accepted by all? And in practical work (eg in business) it shows that a discussion with thousands (!) of persons doesn't work, you always have to form something like a working group. [BTW: it even doesn't work if you have 100 persons]. So a working group is a well-proven method to get out of this probem and a fine decision. And: there are alway two ways to transfer information. I'll give you an example using a document who is updated frequent. One possibility is that somebody tries to inform everydody of a group on a single base by always sending all this document after the update. Frequently this doesn't work all the time as persons are not reachable (not all users are known) or persons are nerved about the permanent information they receve w/o wanting it or because of the costs (printed document). The other is that ererybody out of a group has to inform himself about the latest revision of this document which is provided on a public place. This is a very frequent and efficient way used in business. So: did you inform you frequently about the licence change? It doesn't seem to be so. But then you should not complain about, that's a very poor behaviour which unfortinately is very common... :-( Best regards, Michael. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:59:30PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT. In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did the work. So why should i grant special rights to the OSMF via the CT? A good point about the CC-BY-SA, CC0, PD, GPL or BSD is that everybody gets the same rights. Not so with the current relicensing. With stating that my contributions are PD/CC0 i grant everybody the same rights. The OSMF has stated that they going to delete my contributions as i refused to grant special rights to the OSMF. I couldn’t have said this better myself. I think I tried to make this point in the past, but clearly didn’t get the message across. No central organisation should be granted special rights. The grants are included because of a fear that things will change in the future, and that OSMF won’t be able to manage the change (not unbelievable, considering current circumstances). This is the same sort of fear that makes governments introduce excessive powers, and then come to abuse them. On the one hand, I would like to continue to contribute to OpenStreetMap as a free geodata project; on the other, I want no part in any organisation, nor to support an organisation, that seeks to obtain special powers over anybody else. Does this only sound suspicious for me? No. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
[Robert Kaiser, 11.08.2011, 21:17]: Most of us always agreed that our data is the data of the OSM project as soon as we contributed it, and that the project will always be able to use it. Some disagree apparently and make the life of the project much harder. Unfortunately it is not „the OSM project“ that will decide what happens with the data in the future. Many contributors who are important parts of the project will not be allowed to vote on future license changes. The sysadmins even reserve the right to remove voting rights from people by blocking their edit rights. See the definition of „active contributor“ in the CT to understand why. Members of both the sysadmins and of the legal working group are aware of this, but they have clearly stated that they do not want this to change. Loosing a few contributors (and their data) is regarded as a minor problem. My opinion is that the project consists of all people that contribute to it, and that all contributors should be acknowledged for their work. Some influential people disagree obviously, and this make the life of the project much harder. OIaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:50:40AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: Olaf What you are suggesting would have amounted to allowing every single pre-CT mapper a veto on the license change process. With something around 300'000 pre-CT mappers, this is obviously not just not practical, it is simply absurd. Nobody likes losing data and mappers, but it is unavoidable in a process involving so many people with so divergent views on the subject at hand. Up to now the pre-CT mappers have not even asked if a license change should happen at all, and WHICH license be switched to. The OSMF has decided that it would be best to switch and the best would be ODBL. There has been no Mapper/Contributer participation up to now ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
[Simon Poole, 12.08.2011, 11:29]: Your changes, as has been pointed out to you before, wouldn't have been backwards compatible with the initial CTs. And in reply, I pointed out how this problem could be solved. Just for the record: Both the wording of the CT and the behaviour of the sysadmins have disenfrachised me. I will never contribute to OpenStreetMap again (and not only because you are currently blocking my acount frpom contributing). Have you changed your mind (which I would consider quite legitimate) and do actually want to continue to contribute, or why are you even participating in this discussion? I responded to the Robert's implied claim that „the OSM project“ is identical with those that make decisions. I still consider myself very much a part of the project, even if I am unable to contribute. Olaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Robert Kaiser kairo@... writes: Well, IIRC that's exactly one of the points of the CTs, granting the OSMF the right to allow exemptions in some cases. Although the OSMF is sub-licensing the map and so could sub-license under any terms (including 'ODbL with the following list of clarifications'), in the contributor terms the OSMF promised to use a particular set of licences - and the CTs don't allow the OSMF to issue amendments or clarifications to the licences. So, in order for some clarification such as the exact meaning of 'produced work' to be adopted, it still has to be agreed by every contributor. (Or else, a 2/3 vote of active contributors would allow 'ODbL with clarifications' to be used as the official licence.) It's all a bit muddy. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb: [Robert Kaiser, 11.08.2011, 21:17]: Most of us always agreed that our data is the data of the OSM project as soon as we contributed it, and that the project will always be able to use it. Some disagree apparently and make the life of the project much harder. Unfortunately it is not „the OSM project“ that will decide what happens with the data in the future. Oh, but every self-respecting member of the project is who will decide. And as for the OSMF, I cite www.osmfoundation.org with The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share. I'm happy to grant some rights to my data to such a foundation so that I don't have to care about every legal bit myself. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: And as for the OSMF, I cite www.osmfoundation.org with The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share. That statement tell us how they would like it to work. In reality, they control the project: 1. The license 2. The lists, e.g. moderation on talk-au 3. The domains 4. SoTM and 5. The servers And I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as the community is properly represented on the board. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: On 12.08.2011 11:46, Florian Lohoff wrote: Up to now the pre-CT mappers have not even asked if a license change should happen at all, and WHICH license be switched to. May I remind you a litte bit on the history of the licence change... (all as far as I know) While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? The licence working group was founded 2008, everybody was invited to join. I didn't receive an invitation. If the OSMF wanted to hear all the different opinions on the license, they would not have formed the LWG, because legal-talk is a reasonable aggregation point for that. Actually we were asked to move some discussion from legal-talk to legal-general. So it's pretty clear that the issue was not going to be resolved through 'talk'ing or meetings. Next you are going to point me to the Pieren poll. The first problem there is that people who want PD cannot be assumed to be supporters. But, more importantly, only people subscribed to certain mailing lists knew of that poll. The question is pretty simple: Ask every active mapper (including those who have not accepted the CTs) if they think the benefits of the new license will outweigh the costs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 12.08.2011 11:46, Florian Lohoff wrote: [] BTW: looking on your wiki page you declare: = All my contributions to OpenStreetMap are released into the public domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/public_domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant anyone the right to use my contributions *for any purpose*, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. = So you declare that you don't matter what happens with you data: everybody can do anything he likes. This means the OSMF can take all your data and publish it under any any licence they want. Question: which problem do you have with the ODBL? You can accept the ODBL/CT and additionally check the PD flag = that's exactly what you want according to your Wiki page. BTW: to set the whole OSM database under PD is not capable of winning a majority = no choice. Best regards, Michael. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote: If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly OSM community can help your resolve the problem of not agreeing with yourself. ;-) PD is only compatible in the sense that another person can take the data and upload it to OSM. But you don't have a contract with the OSMF and so you can't upload it yourself. For the record CC-By-SA is compatible with the new Contributor Terms much like public domain is. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
The discussion is not about comparing to google or Wikimapia CT. It's not because one is bad the other should be bad alike. is about not trusting (and thus assuring by a CT) your OSM contributors, and about not trusting the users (by using a unnecessary restrictive license compared to PD) that they will use the data. It's about a new way of thinking that I believe should go with open data. It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion only is about what license. The most thorough argument has been argument has about attribution that might me forgotten ( my god, how many times does (y)our ego need to be attributed to be satisfied) and some control freaks shouting I do not want google to steal our data which is complete nonsense. They already steal our data, and apologise only when discovered. Like we steal their data in a very unsystematic and fragmented way (user by user , street by street , poi by poi.). Yes Henk, examples do not have a direct relation, they are examples only no need to ask what the relation is, if you do not understand it, just ignore, others do. CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest version includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new, unknown and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain path. Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and reduces the amount of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning. (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation) The chances of a CC-BY-SA being challenged in court are indeed much less, I believe. I do not know the story about the 10 virgins. May be it's like OdBL, new and unknown ? The OSMF is preparing actions ? What actions ? That is an empty phrase (peptalk). Regards, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Henk Hoff [mailto:o...@toffehoff.nl] Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:51 AM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Op 10-08-11 12:33, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schreef: To all It's all a matter of trust. A) Trusting contributors and b) trusting the users of OSM data. The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody, and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty, by creating licenses and contributor terms. Have you actually *read* the CT? Trust nobody? The OSMF asks of its contributors that they only contribute stuf which they are allowed to. The OSMF promises that the collective will always be published with a free and open license. Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you agree every time you use one of its services. It will probably take a long time for those seeking this way that it is a way without issue. First because legal certainty does not exist in a society where justice is dominated by (financial) power. ( see Dominique Strauss Kahn case for a recent example ) What has this to do with OSM? Second because the legal certainty created by the CT is uncertain because it is badly written, and one needs not be a specialist to understand that; and the use of OdBl is so unprecedented that we are completely unclear if it will hold in ANY case but the simplest. Do you claim that CC-BY-SA does not need a specialist to understand it? Third because we don't not have the financial means to maintain the license in even the smallest case. Like mentioned before, we're not maintaining the license. ODbL is maintained by Open Data Commons, whereas the CC is maintained by Creative Commons. Not the OSMF. OSMF will probably go bankrupt on the first case against an fraudulent user of the data. Are you suggesting that with sticking with CC-BY-SA we don't have such a problem? (if we have it at all) You ever read the story of the emperor's new clothes ? (=read CT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes I know the story. However, another story comes to mind with me. Ever read the parable of the ten virgins? It's about being prepared for what's coming. The OSMF is taking actions needed to keep the project running for years to come. Gert Henk Oh, wait a minute... In a previous message you made it perfectly clear you don't trust me Why am I even replying ___ 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] I want my access back
Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: ... It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion only is about what license. A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use our data, the license could be CC0, but still a license. Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to deal with them. CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest version includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new, unknown and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain path. Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and reduces the amount of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning. (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation) They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for databases. AFAIK we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing the license in the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a mechanism for doing exactly that). And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go away, we need contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation in to account, not make believe stuff. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Thanks Simon for your constructive reply. (contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll) But the EC directive does not oblige us to license data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF. If we choose for no-license or just PD (give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that. That is why I said: the necessity of a license has never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental threads). I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the people of this world if our license terms are minimized (so PD). And at the input side (CT) we need to build trust that the number of non-PD contributions will be neglectable. Some may call that naïve, but the principle of open data was naïve too, once. I strongly believe that there are tools for that (explaining, correcting and explaining) that actually work, contradictory to obliging innocent people to sign an intimidating CT of which the consequences to them are unknown (the current CT) and have not yet been tested in court an for which we lack the financial means to really enforce them. And No, not because wikiwhatever or Google or any other organization does the same we need to mimic that. And for those who say : why did you sign up for CC-BY-SA then ? CC-BY-SA is the current situation, to be honest, 5 years ago I did not know what CC-BY-SA meant, and we certainly did not sign a corresponding CT at the time. I am unbound by a CT and free and intend to stay that. And I will never sign an agreement that legally binds me and puts me in a legal risky situation for things that I *give* to OSM. I may consider a CT for data that I provide if I was paid for it, but I'll never put my life at risk for nothing. Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:57 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: ... It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion only is about what license. A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use our data, the license could be CC0, but still a license. Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to deal with them. CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest version includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new, unknown and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain path. Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and reduces the amount of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning. (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation) They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for databases. AFAIK we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing the license in the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a mechanism for doing exactly that). And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go away, we need contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation in to account, not make believe stuff. Simon ___ 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] I want my access back
So by citing my e-mail without a license, you made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually republishing copyrighted work May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived work ? And I can sue you because, contrary to maps in dbase format that represent the real world (facts: ok there is no consensus about that yet) my words are copyrighted by default. There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of intellectual property ! I must admit that at least your attributed my words ! Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:42 PM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Am 11.08.2011 12:00, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: Thanks Simon for your constructive reply. (contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll) But the EC directive does not oblige us to license data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF. If we choose for no-license or just PD (give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that. That is why I said: the necessity of a license has never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental threads). The default condition is that your rights to your work of art, database (even in the case of the sui generis database rights) etc. are protected. If you want to allow somebody to use your work, you have to grant them the rights to do so, this is called a license. Even in the extreme case of essentially allowing everything to be done by anybody, you still have to state this. In the many countries that do not have an PD equivalent, this again boils down to a license. I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the people of this world if our license terms are minimized (so PD). So do I, but that is a completely different discussion. The compromise between the PD and the viral share-a-like license fractions is the ODbL, trying to undo that will -not- result in a PD OSM database. Simon ___ 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] I want my access back
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schrieb: So by citing my e-mail without a license, you made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually republishing copyrighted work No, only if it wasn't properly cited, as (AFAIK) most IP laws require you to point out who is the author unless the author states otherwise. There is no infringement if you state who owns the copyright over what you republish - the actual reason for creating copyright in the first place was to make sure proper attribution is given. May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived work ? That it would be, AFAIK, yes. There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of intellectual property ! True, and that's what CTs and a license are for! BTW, if you would want to change OSM to be PD, you probably would need to wipe the map clean and restart from scratch, as most contributors want an attribution to the project at least - and that's what's not guaranteed with current CC-BY-SA due to not applying for databases appropriately in some jurisdictions. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 11/08/11 16:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: I see no difference in re-publishing text, as in our email lists and the database, properly citing Google as source. You are correct. Both are breaches of copyright where it applies. There are two important differences though. Firstly custom and fair use are on the side of quoting emails in conversations. Secondly, Google haven't taken all your maps and incorporated them but you have quoted many other people's emails. You will probably say then that Google's license prohibits that use -even when attributing- and then I come back to my (much earlier) statement that licenses are there to restrict free use of data, not to allow. To the extent that databases are covered by rights or contracts that is false. Anyway, if default IP right allows for citing when attributing, why do our users need to agree to a ODBL license ? Allow or require? Is there anything more that we like them to comply with ? To pass on the freedom they receive. But if you want data to be PD, make it PD and then someone else can incorporate it into the database under the CTs. I really don't see what the problem is. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Ed Avis schrieb: The CC-BY-SA licence does seem to be a lot more straightforward than the ODbL/DbCL combination. As I understand it, that's because any current CC-BY-SA license does not really cover databases as described by database laws in some jurisdictions, and neither collections of factual information as described in other jurisdictions, while the ODbL/DbCL combination does. (Although the uncertainty could be mitigated by agreed community norms and agreed interpretations, there isn't any body able to define them: the OSMF cannot grant exemptions from the strict letter of the licence or issue clarifications about what it means, because the OSMF is not the copyright holder.) Well, IIRC that's exactly one of the points of the CTs, granting the OSMF the right to allow exemptions in some cases. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Hi, On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote: Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale, for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen. You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. The data is not simply replaced, but mostly improved by having more high-resolution imagery available. You can read the whole success story in the forum. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: Hi, On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote: Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale, for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen. You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. The data is not simply replaced, but mostly improved by having more high-resolution imagery available. You can read the whole success story in the forum. What's your estimate for how long it is going to take? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Hi, On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote: You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and diligence with which mappers all over the place are working towards getting ready for the big switch. Most had held back initially to give people a chance to reconsider, but now things are really moving, and with a very positive attitude at that - it's not grumble grumble grumble why do we have to do this but we're doing our part to put OSM on a solid legal footing, cleaning up behind those whom we couldn't persuade. For this, it is obviously very important *not* to allow any further CC-BY-SA contributions as those would give people a sense of fighting against windmills. Everyone is working to bring the amount of non-relicensable contributions down to zero; adding more non-relicensable contributions would not only pull the rope in the other direction, it would also ruin the spirits of everyone working to fix things. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
It's OSM that obliges users to contribute CC-BY-SA and it's OSM that obliges users to contribute ODBL. But many of us want to contribute PD and do not want to comply with any CT at all. PD data does not need a complicated and binding CT as the current one. And the current situation is not possible to contribute PD data at all. So the situation would have been much improved if there were a sign up as PD user with a very simple PD-CT. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:15 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Hi, On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote: You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and diligence with which mappers all over the place are working towards getting ready for the big switch. Most had held back initially to give people a chance to reconsider, but now things are really moving, and with a very positive attitude at that - it's not grumble grumble grumble why do we have to do this but we're doing our part to put OSM on a solid legal footing, cleaning up behind those whom we couldn't persuade. For this, it is obviously very important *not* to allow any further CC-BY-SA contributions as those would give people a sense of fighting against windmills. Everyone is working to bring the amount of non-relicensable contributions down to zero; adding more non-relicensable contributions would not only pull the rope in the other direction, it would also ruin the spirits of everyone working to fix things. Bye Frederik ___ 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] I want my access back
It's not just remapping that effects this, we are still seeing between 60-100 pre-CTs signups accepting the CTs per day without any indication of this slowing down. I expect a couple of 10'000 more before we actually relicense. Simon Am 10.08.2011 09:16, schrieb 80n: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de mailto:o...@stephans-server.de wrote: Hi, On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote: Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale, for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen. You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. The data is not simply replaced, but mostly improved by having more high-resolution imagery available. You can read the whole success story in the forum. What's your estimate for how long it is going to take? ___ 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] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: PD data does not need a complicated and binding CT as the current one. True. But PD is forward compatible with the CTs. For example, we did not need to ask the upstream authors of TIGER to accept the CTs. PD is not backward compatible with the CTs. But that's a complicated subject that was discussed many times and I'd rather avoid it. And the current situation is not possible to contribute PD data at all. So the situation would have been much improved if there were a sign up as PD user with a very simple PD-CT. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:15 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Hi, On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote: You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and diligence with which mappers all over the place are working towards getting ready for the big switch. Most had held back initially to give people a chance to reconsider, but now things are really moving, and with a very positive attitude at that - it's not grumble grumble grumble why do we have to do this but we're doing our part to put OSM on a solid legal footing, cleaning up behind those whom we couldn't persuade. For this, it is obviously very important *not* to allow any further CC-BY-SA contributions as those would give people a sense of fighting against windmills. Everyone is working to bring the amount of non-relicensable contributions down to zero; adding more non-relicensable contributions would not only pull the rope in the other direction, it would also ruin the spirits of everyone working to fix things. Bye Frederik ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Am 10.08.2011 11:29, schrieb Nic Roets: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmeng.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: PD data does not need a complicated and binding CT as the current one. True. But PD is forward compatible with the CTs. For example, we did not need to ask the upstream authors of TIGER to accept the CTs. That is naturally the case because we have a well known source and formal reasons to be very sure that the data is actually really PD in the case of the TIGER data. In the case of an individual mappers contribution we have a very different situation where essentially we would need the same level of agreement as the current CTs. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
To all It's all a matter of trust. A) Trusting contributors and b) trusting the users of OSM data. The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody, and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty, by creating licenses and contributor terms. It will probably take a long time for those seeking this way that it is a way without issue. First because legal certainty does not exist in a society where justice is dominated by (financial) power. ( see Dominique Strauss Kahn case for a recent example ) Second because the legal certainty created by the CT is uncertain because it is badly written, and one needs not be a specialist to understand that; and the use of OdBl is so unprecedented that we are completely unclear if it will hold in ANY case but the simplest. Third because we don't not have the financial means to maintain the license in even the smallest case. OSMF will probably go bankrupt on the first case against an fraudulent user of the data. You ever read the story of the emperor's new clothes ? (=read CT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes That is what comes to mind if we look at OSM legal position. And that is how the whole world is looking at us (if they actually do matter to look) I a world where legal certainty dominates trust, justice is far away, and that is what's happening now. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:43 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back Am 10.08.2011 11:29, schrieb Nic Roets: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmeng.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: PD data does not need a complicated and binding CT as the current one. True. But PD is forward compatible with the CTs. For example, we did not need to ask the upstream authors of TIGER to accept the CTs. That is naturally the case because we have a well known source and formal reasons to be very sure that the data is actually really PD in the case of the TIGER data. In the case of an individual mappers contribution we have a very different situation where essentially we would need the same level of agreement as the current CTs. Simon ___ 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] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote: You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and diligence with which mappers all over the place are working towards getting ready for the big switch. What are you looking at that provides this information? Or is it just anecdotal? Most had held back initially to give people a chance to reconsider, but now things are really moving, and with a very positive attitude at that - it's not grumble grumble grumble why do we have to do this but we're doing our part to put OSM on a solid legal footing, cleaning up behind those whom we couldn't persuade. For this, it is obviously very important *not* to allow any further CC-BY-SA contributions as those would give people a sense of fighting against windmills. Everyone is working to bring the amount of non-relicensable contributions down to zero; adding more non-relicensable contributions would not only pull the rope in the other direction, it would also ruin the spirits of everyone working to fix things. Agreed. fosm.org is the place for CC-BY-SA contributions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Florian Lohoff schrieb: More interestingly - Why on earth cant i contribute although i stated that all my contributions can be considered CC0/Public Domain? Why do i need to accept the CT, granting some spooky special rights to some folks i dont know and who definitly not act in my name. If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly OSM community can help your resolve the problem of not agreeing with yourself. ;-) Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Hi, On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote: Florian Lohoff schrieb: More interestingly - Why on earth cant i contribute although i stated that all my contributions can be considered CC0/Public Domain? Why do i need to accept the CT, granting some spooky special rights to some folks i dont know and who definitly not act in my name. If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly OSM community can help your resolve the problem of not agreeing with yourself. ;-) Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT. In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did the work. So why should i grant special rights to the OSMF via the CT? A good point about the CC-BY-SA, CC0, PD, GPL or BSD is that everybody gets the same rights. Not so with the current relicensing. With stating that my contributions are PD/CC0 i grant everybody the same rights. The OSMF has stated that they going to delete my contributions as i refused to grant special rights to the OSMF. Does this only sound suspicious for me? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided +1 But when you contribute under an open license, you must make peace that some downstream users will use it in some unintended ways. For example the spirit of the GPL2 being circumvented by bootloaders checking digital signatures, or online service providers not sharing the improvements they made to the Linux kernel. to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT. In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did the work. So why should i grant special rights to the OSMF via the CT? A good point about the CC-BY-SA, CC0, PD, GPL or BSD is that everybody gets the same rights. Not so with the current relicensing. With stating that my contributions are PD/CC0 i grant everybody the same rights. The OSMF has stated that they going to delete my contributions as i refused to grant special rights to the OSMF. Does this only sound suspicious for me? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBTkLVEpDdQSDLCfIvAQivpA/7BIv6SrfMU1yO3lse+QTNFiwYDdfjVjsu FNWkuaf6PjUynpfAdwZVpMFRY5oR9o5fuuvGGu++2mdyzAHGgdIlLQ19zvSKWMYL jeouXSQqSmu4wETNw4GsbBuHQruZ7VsUSqvBbyT0RMaActbaJ864feNQRvzywHT0 4DX8/ozw2ypLwWEuf/TMKOHTf0Zlsab+jm9MZxGD/S7TBw+uJ78z9PIEWinw2/ov yoPnvflJA2rL4LE7UujfxilHOtbkaq3Ec9atOZ411J2tZB5e2Ozjx6MC8H2TDwEI qinU5FzgigCNwic5sGVGdtXYMll5zJx/Tr5Tix02JkCbMTsAJGa2+Ar+/E9kM9QB 7bbyewkOtWND8KI1z7QecVaSKP0q5x4zo5tjXfbZtXpBwY4K116rBcoa4oVCCIwc kxSEsM0ZMmFD878gh/LffoM/25IQTofvxXWIQM2w9xN1ChD8Ay2zZd+KXaDIXLBW s6dEM0jvYUuG6gMtCjpoRfzXWoke6k2Mf+M5eqobVf4CC4/4SvhJ+MhHzyAxIVsF ZyckKJhIjN4w7RTscb0DvwJ10qpA0vzcYo2/75tWHHYuUfplssB5yllpXxSdR9mj r2+JmkCUti4V+ZhJ3LsCAVmolBVXsuGl1ZnRPax9kHDlAiNujZrP3iv+5WAUHZRP LjFobQmFn7Q= =cc7h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] I want my access back
Gert Gremmen wrote: OSM promised me that my contributions to be removed in the process to OdBL. That did not happen. Nor has a OdBL version of the OSM database been launched. Did you ever try to understand anything about the licence change at all? Did you read about the process e.g. in the wiki? And are you aware which phase of the process of the licence change is currently ongoing? It doesn't seem to be, otherwise you would not write such a nonsens like that! Sorry for this tough words, but ... \|||/ (o o) ,~~~ooO~~(_)~, | Please | | don't feed the | | TROLL! | '~~ooO~~~' |__|__| || || ooO Ooo [PLONK] Best regards, Michael. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Op 10-08-11 12:33, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schreef: To all It's all a matter of trust. A) Trusting contributors and b) trusting the users of OSM data. The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody, and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty, by creating licenses and contributor terms. Have you actually *read* the CT? Trust nobody? The OSMF asks of its contributors that they only contribute stuf which they are allowed to. The OSMF promises that the collective will always be published with a free and open license. Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you agree every time you use one of its services. It will probably take a long time for those seeking this way that it is a way without issue. First because legal certainty does not exist in a society where justice is dominated by (financial) power. ( see Dominique Strauss Kahn case for a recent example ) What has this to do with OSM? Second because the legal certainty created by the CT is uncertain because it is badly written, and one needs not be a specialist to understand that; and the use of OdBl is so unprecedented that we are completely unclear if it will hold in ANY case but the simplest. Do you claim that CC-BY-SA does not need a specialist to understand it? Third because we don't not have the financial means to maintain the license in even the smallest case. Like mentioned before, we're not maintaining the license. ODbL is maintained by Open Data Commons, whereas the CC is maintained by Creative Commons. Not the OSMF. OSMF will probably go bankrupt on the first case against an fraudulent user of the data. Are you suggesting that with sticking with CC-BY-SA we don't have such a problem? (if we have it at all) You ever read the story of the emperor's new clothes ? (=read CT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes I know the story. However, another story comes to mind with me. Ever read the parable of the ten virgins? It's about being prepared for what's coming. The OSMF is taking actions needed to keep the project running for years to come. Gert Henk Oh, wait a minute... In a previous message you made it perfectly clear you don't trust me Why am I even replying ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Am 11.08.2011 01:50, schrieb Henk Hoff: ... Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you agree every time you use one of its services. I normally refer to http://wikimapia.org/terms_reference.html for ToS for something similar to OSM. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: OSM is still CC-BY-SA and it seems that that won’t change soon. ** Gert, if you are so sure of that, open a new account and use that instead. At the very least you will still be contributing to osm and any forks that may occur. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:03:16PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: Gert, if you are so sure of that, open a new account and use that instead. At the very least you will still be contributing to osm and any forks that may occur. He said he would not accept the CT so he is now officially excluded from contributing to OSM - As am i ... OSM or better the OSMF decided to exspell all former contributers from further contributing. The precise statement of that will be interesting. What if you personally accept the CTs but imported CC-BY-SA material in your old account ? As a lot of contributers fear the loss of data my guess is that the OSMF will delay the deletion of data and final switch to ODBL ad infinitum, until all data has been white washed through later modifications. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:58:03PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: The precise statement of that will be interesting. What if you personally accept the CTs but imported CC-BY-SA material in your old account ? IANAL but my guess is that you might decide on every individual contribution how to license them. The smallest aggregation factor with OSM is the login/username so as long as you accept the CT on one login and not accept on another the latter ones contributions may not be relicensed. More interestingly - Why on earth cant i contribute although i stated that all my contributions can be considered CC0/Public Domain? Why do i need to accept the CT, granting some spooky special rights to some folks i dont know and who definitly not act in my name. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Me too, I would like to fix some bugs, why am I locked out? mike On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:03:16PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: Gert, if you are so sure of that, open a new account and use that instead. At the very least you will still be contributing to osm and any forks that may occur. He said he would not accept the CT so he is now officially excluded from contributing to OSM - As am i ... OSM or better the OSMF decided to exspell all former contributers from further contributing. As a lot of contributers fear the loss of data my guess is that the OSMF will delay the deletion of data and final switch to ODBL ad infinitum, until all data has been white washed through later modifications. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBTkF/MZDdQSDLCfIvAQhR3w//dfLdyTFax9iZAd6BCgKjTtcPayyj2c/I ihfwpxHKsndQ5AIC88RsN1TJJ/2S66gFtX3iOAZ/Fli3bd9B2v7BJtF1gh2NgMww M4fKyGDM1BO1t3sbWjoM34iQT9ywhIo96hKF34/MalxyUFLYDGtxllgJumKsDRe8 oQ6Lu4jxBc9Bxayb02XrnX1n/SfooZ3BVwdNMsC3j1DglY+hO2J0g0nWzkqOg+GQ 5TbJS9lSxka/9qMYzqIQnzL6qIuTIR+pPf722RGkDskpiHeJGmeOnWL5ZU4q3WNj oOk82aHU9CfNGduXsfOv5v42PBsUttJHPkEGlF7HKU6HnAIFVTeZTXphT5A2xXn7 l9THCq2UIQCTtXRnnryP9TnPcuKjyIvczb6IUYfzuO0vG1vS39irIk9LvsQdFmtk n9+MbowMVApI0dJNRK5GFA71ArQL2HVAxB/+tUEpB1+NFOfNlpv6v4twAt0pBJBG KUj2BvFSaZ44EYntFFtkgfPWmO0PcS8/wFqPEjyM+9OF04pFsNhFgMQbhL/tOGEI 0kACoXKeTKAyn+Mj5RPGtw5Bc/TS2hc9+/xGpLo4RtfoyxoRF2MyIcRpd8yx7/95 BLBkeVpkrdxFuSK4e/fbWtdx/2aoHPc63QWFKbJd5zRYaiLbpFasUHr2TOBq+pGQ 6cmr6nikb8k= =5TP8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: As I do not agree with the CT and did not click the right checkbox, I have been blocked contributing access. ** ** OSM promised me that my contributions to be removed in the process to OdBL. That did not happen. Nor has a OdBL version of the OSM database been launched. Gert, your contributions are being looked after at fosm.org. You are welcome to edit there and there's no threat of them ever being deleted. ** ** OSM is still CC-BY-SA and it seems that that won’t change soon. ** Sadly I think you are right. The removal process was never thought through properly. OSM will be stuck with CC-BY-SA content for a very very long time. Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale, for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen. Mapping is addictive but pointless mapping is no fun at all. So the only recourse is to do bulk deletions. But I don't see anyone hurrying to write the software to do that even if anyone could agree on what it should actually do. ** I think the decision to block my account and that of many others has been a bit premature, and the community should reconsider their decision. ** ** Especially now it looks as if the OdBl will never make it for legal and practical reasons. True. ** ** ** ** Gert Gremmen ** ** ** ** - [image: Osm] Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) P* Before printing, think about the environment.* ** ** ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk image001.gif___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Mike, Florian, Gert, if you want to make edits and are uncomfortable with putting your old edits under the Contributor Terms, you can create a new account and make edits with that. This will *not* have any influence on the data you contributed with your old account; only your new edits will fall under the CT. If you want to make edits to OSM without agreeing to the CT even for these new edits, then sorry, we are not interested in that kind of contribution. If not agreeing to the CT is more imporant to you than contributing to OpenStreetMap, then you could e.g. sign up to fosm.org and contribute there. Gert, you seem to be under the impression that the license change process has somehow failed just because we're still handing out the planet under CC-BY-SA. But you are wrong; this has always been the case. Were we to switch to ODbL today we'd lose too much data; we'd rather patch things up *before* we switch. And this is not a recent change of plans; it was always planned to wait until it is feasible to make the switch. Personally, I expect it to happen in the first half of 2012 but I have no LWG inside knowledge. 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] I want my access back
Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: Gert, you seem to be under the impression that the license change process has somehow failed just because we're still handing out the planet under CC-BY-SA. But you are wrong; this has always been the case. Maybe that too, but I meant to write this has always been the plan. 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
