Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: However, this part remains: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright... As Ben has pointed out, this section retains the assumption made previously: that you have the right to grant these rights. Along with other points that I have already pointed out, I'll note that the grant is with respect to Your Contents, not with respect to Other People's Contents. Yes, but if Your Contents are partly derived from Other People's Stuff, so that Other People hold some rights in them too... Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The Work is derived from Your Contents and Their Contents. Would a definition of Your Contents help clarify that? There are multiple copyrights on a derivative work. Each author's copyright extends only to his original material, and not to the material contributed by others. At any rate it's not crystal clear, and it needs to be. I agree that if it's not crystal clear to you, that this situation should be fixed. But it is crystal clear to me, so I'm not really sure how to fix it. I gave some suggested text earlier, but didn't receive any comment on whether or not that would be sufficient to clarify it. Maybe this is just a jurisdictional issue? I'm going to quote from the US Code, Title 17, Section 103. Someone please let me know if this principle is not accepted in other jurisdictions: 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
Anthony o...@... writes: Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The Work is derived from Your Contents and Their Contents. Would a definition of Your Contents help clarify that? Yes, it would - although I think that the approach I proposed of 'section A - rights you hold' and 'section B - rights held by others' would be even clearer. The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents' would effectively be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other People's Contents'. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The At least in the case of Nearmap, they hold rights in Your Contents too: You will own all Derived Works that you create. However, you may only distribute Derived Works to others on the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence... Maybe rights isn't the right word, but they impose conditions on what you can do with Your Contents. There are multiple copyrights on a derivative work. Each author's copyright extends only to his original material, and not to the material contributed by others. Yeah, but copyright and licensing are two quite separate issues. I agree that if it's not crystal clear to you, that this situation should be fixed. But it is crystal clear to me, so I'm not really sure how to fix it. It's quite clear what the CTs say to me, and it's wrong. :) Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents' would effectively be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other People's Contents'. Correct. Of course, even if you're not breaching a contract by intentionally bulk-uploading data which is incompatible with the current license, that doesn't mean you can't be blocked and/or have your edits reverted for doing so. That seems like the better place to address the issue anyway. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
It's a summaryhttp://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=define:+summary, which means that it omits some of the detail. The actual licence is at http://www.nearmap.com/products/community-licence http://www.nearmap.com/products/community-licenceRegards Ben On 17 November 2010 01:56, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: In order to derive data from nearmap.com PhotoMaps, you must agree to our community licence, which says: If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to others under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. In other words, you're constrained in what you can do with that derived work. What you quote is a summary of the license terms. What the actual license terms say is that: you may only distribute Derived Works to others on the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence (and you may use any version of that licence you wish, whether localised for a particular country or not) The inclusion of that word only in the actual license terms (as opposed to the summary), makes all the difference in the world. I'd suggest you get your lawyers to add the word only to the summary you just quoted, after may and before distribute, as the summary is very misleading otherwise. Alternatively, you could take the word only out of the actual license terms, in which case Nearmap's license terms and CT 1.2 might very well be compatible. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Ben Last Development Manager nearmap.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On 15 November 2010 15:33, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Is that the only way to read the terms? Paragraph 2 merely say that you, the person uploading the data, grant a license to OSMF. Paragraph 2 does not warrant that *no one else* (e.g. Nearmap) might *also* have rights which still need to be respected. In order to derive data from nearmap.com PhotoMaps, you must agree to our community licence, which says: If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to others under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA)http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ licence. In other words, you're constrained in what you can do with that derived work. If you trace a street or a feature, that is a derived work, and you can distribute it under a CC-BY-SA licence. But paragraph 2 of the CTs requires that you grant OSMF a much wider licence than CC-BY-SA, which you can't do, because you only have the right to distribute your derived work under CC-BY-SA. Regards Ben -- Ben Last Development Manager nearmap.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: In order to derive data from nearmap.com PhotoMaps, you must agree to our community licence, which says: If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to others under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. In other words, you're constrained in what you can do with that derived work. If you trace a street or a feature, that is a derived work, and you can distribute it under a CC-BY-SA licence. But paragraph 2 of the CTs requires that you grant OSMF a much wider licence than CC-BY-SA, which you can't do, because you only have the right to distribute your derived work under CC-BY-SA. It seems there is an assumption by the authors of the CTs that, as the contributor of data: 1) you own the copyright to that data; and therefore 2) you can, and are willing to, grant an extremely wide licence to OSMF However, this assumption is incorrect in at least these two cases: 1) You don't own the data, but it is licensed CC-BY-SA (or similar), and therefore it would be compatible with OSM. 2) You own the data, but are prevented for other reasons (such as NearMap's community licence) from granting the extremely wide licence OSMF requires. The bottom line is this: the CTs make open licences an insufficient condition for inclusion of content into OSM. I'm sad to hear that progress on the CTs has stalled - these versions seem horribly flawed. Or, if my above conclusions are correct, and intentional, there should be a big public statement explaining this change in policy. Not simply We are making changes to allow a future change in licensing, and this is a little administrative matter, but We have decided to no longer accept open source content. All submitted content must be either fully owned by the contributor, with no restrictions, or submitted with the explicit permission of the copyright owner. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On 15 November 2010 22:47, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: It seems there is an assumption by the authors of the CTs that, as the contributor of data: 1) you own the copyright to that data; and therefore 2) you can, and are willing to, grant an extremely wide licence to OSMF I'm not on the LWG, but I believe that this is all being considered. Certainly these concerns have been raised before and I am sure they are well aware of the difficulties. I doubt they are making the assumption you suggest. However, this assumption is incorrect in at least these two cases: 1) You don't own the data, but it is licensed CC-BY-SA (or similar), and therefore it would be compatible with OSM. 2) You own the data, but are prevented for other reasons (such as NearMap's community licence) from granting the extremely wide licence OSMF requires. Clearly if there was that assumption then it would be wrong. The bottom line is this: the CTs make open licences an insufficient condition for inclusion of content into OSM. They do at present - I think this is a well understood question. I have certainly read statements by people who suggest this is desirable (that is excluding licensed data sets is a positive outcome). The current working draft license terms suggest this is not the view taken by its drafters and they do not intend it to be the outcome: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb I'm sad to hear that progress on the CTs has stalled - these versions It doesn't look stalled to me: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes There is progress. seem horribly flawed. Or, if my above conclusions are correct, and intentional, there should be a big public statement explaining this change in policy. Not simply We are making changes to allow a future change in licensing, and this is a little administrative matter, but We have decided to no longer accept open source content. All submitted content must be either fully owned by the contributor, with no restrictions, or submitted with the explicit permission of the copyright owner. As you will see from reading the minutes, that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
So, it's been a few months now. Any signs of progress on CTs that would be compatible with data providers like NearMap? Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
Hi From the nearmap.com side, there have been a couple of emails since the discussion with the LWG, but nothing in the last month. I've been reading the minutes and check the redrafting of the Contributor Terms ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues) to monitor any changes. Referring to that page: - The section on Incompatibility with ODBL / Share-A-Like Datahttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Incompatibility_with_ODBL_.2F_Share_A_Like_Data suggests a way forward that might help address one of the issues we raised; it proposes that in the event of a future change to a licence incompatible with the licence(s) under which data had been submitted to OSM, such data would be deleted (that's my understanding of the proposal, not a quote). - The section on the very wide range of paragraph 2http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Very_wide_range_of_paragraph_2, however, doesn't change the situation. Please note that we're not trying to make a philosophical objection here; it's just a fact that if you have a CC-BY-SA (or even ODbL) licence to some data, whether from nearmap.com or anywhere else, you cannot grant a wider licence to that data to the OSMF, as required by paragraph 2. A CC-BY-SA or ODbL licence doesn't grant you the rights that you would need to do so. As others have observed, this isn't specifically a nearmap.com issue, it's an issue for *any* dataset has been or would be incorporated into OSM under a licence, unless that licence does grant the necessary rights. So as matters currently stand, the nearmap.com community licence doesn't grant the necessary rights that would allow an OSM mapper to accept the Contributor Terms for existing or future data derived from our PhotoMaps. Because of various comments made online about this, I'd like to stress again that we have not withdrawn support from OSM, nor have we changed our licence to make it incompatible. Our community licence covering derived works was established as CC-BY-SA when we launched (this was in part specifically to allow OSM contributions), and it still is CC-BY-SA. It's the changes made to the Contributor Terms by the OSMF that have led to the incompatibility. I believe we understand the motivations behind those changes, but I also believe we're obliged to point out that they raise significant issues affecting the use of our data; that's all I'm seeking to do. As ever, it is for the OpenStreetMap community to determine what changes should be made. Regards Ben On 15 November 2010 11:57, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: So, it's been a few months now. Any signs of progress on CTs that would be compatible with data providers like NearMap? Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Ben Last Development Manager nearmap.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
