Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Anthony wrote: Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts. and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Alright, so, here's what they've said: We occasionally encounter a misimpression that CC licenses can’t be used for data and databases, or that we don’t want CC licenses to be used for data and databases. This is largely our fault Data and databases are often copyrightable. When licensed under any of our licenses, the license terms apply to copyrightable data and databases, requiring adaptations that are distributed be released under the same or compatible license terms, for example, when a ShareAlike license is used. CC licenses can and should be used for data and databases, right now (as they have been for 8 years) — with the important caveat that CC 3.0 license conditions do not extend to “protect” a database that is otherwise uncopyrightable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
Hi, Anthony wrote: Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts. and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. 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] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position that scientific data should be licensed CC0? Mike's comments seemed to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see how cartographic facts are not scientific data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position that scientific data should be licensed CC0? Mike's comments seemed to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see how cartographic facts are not scientific data. Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression half of the idea/expression divide. This would level the playing field between different jurisdictions, while remaining a pure grant of permission and without resorting to imposing extra restrictions on people beyond what the law specifies. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression half of the idea/expression divide. Ugh, sorry for the imprecise language (this is why I'm thrilled CC's lawyers are finally looking at this). By does not cover, I mean that it provides license to use any facts and ideas contained in the work without restriction. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
Thanks for posting this Kai. Those comments from Creative Commons look promising. On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet. http://lwn.net/Articles/422493/ It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels, there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring points to light that would suggest a possible, quite significant, change of attitude (or at least a perceived change) of CC towards open data licensing and OSM. I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't missrepresent anyone. - CC does not (no longer) think data should be PD and would be happy with copyleft on data. The statements of CC saying data should be PD were from science commons for scientific data only and was a misscommunication that it was perceived as general CC viewpoint - CC does care about data and either sees their licensing as potentially valid for data or intend to make it work for data - CC is (or will be) working on a new version 4 of their CC licenses, which will apparently make every effort to address the needs of the open data ecosystem What exactly this all means, if it is indeed a shift away from the position CC appears to have held previously, why it comes to light now and if it has any relevance to the license change process for OSM I have no idea. But perhaps we will find out more about this soon from CC as mlinksva mentioned he wanted to follow up on these points publicly. Their wiki page on version 4 ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4 ) at least is still entirely empty. So it probably isn't anything around the corner or of any certainty yet. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LWN-article-on-license-change-and-Creative-Commons-tp5945925p5945925.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] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On 21/01/11 00:02, Kai Krueger wrote: I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't missrepresent anyone. I am *very* glad that CC are now publicly acknowledging the harm that Science Commons has caused. I don't know how far CC can go with the 4.0 licences, but Mike's comment does appear to represent a major shift in thinking within CC. It's well worth reading his responses to follow up comments in full. And I look forward to the post he promises with great interest. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
Kai Krueger kakrueger@... writes: It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels, there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring points to light that would suggest a possible, quite significant, change of attitude (or at least a perceived change) of CC towards open data licensing and OSM. I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open Data Commons. -- Andrew ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open Data Commons. I wouldn't know. On the other hand, Mike Linksvayer, from Creative Commons, joined the License Working Group conference call on 18 Jan 2011. The discussion was cordial. I found it interesting to hear the CC perspective on things. So I wouldn't say that a turf war is brewing between CC and OSM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is not directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is not directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project. Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I'm thrilled to see that CC seems to be distancing itself from this position. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet. http://lwn.net/Articles/422493/ It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels, there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring points to light that would suggest a possible, quite significant, change of attitude (or at least a perceived change) of CC towards open data licensing and OSM. I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't missrepresent anyone. - CC does not (no longer) think data should be PD and would be happy with copyleft on data. The statements of CC saying data should be PD were from science commons for scientific data only and was a misscommunication that it was perceived as general CC viewpoint - CC does care about data and either sees their licensing as potentially valid for data or intend to make it work for data - CC is (or will be) working on a new version 4 of their CC licenses, which will apparently make every effort to address the needs of the open data ecosystem What exactly this all means, if it is indeed a shift away from the position CC appears to have held previously, why it comes to light now and if it has any relevance to the license change process for OSM I have no idea. But perhaps we will find out more about this soon from CC as mlinksva mentioned he wanted to follow up on these points publicly. Their wiki page on version 4 ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4 ) at least is still entirely empty. So it probably isn't anything around the corner or of any certainty yet. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LWN-article-on-license-change-and-Creative-Commons-tp5945925p5945925.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
