Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
+1 It's the contributor terms that made me refuse to accept. Not ODBL. I can see the both the advantages and drawbacks of ODBL but these are not a major problem. For me the CT has been a problem. I principally refuse to sign a contract where I can be held legally responsible for data I contribute for free; where the other party engages itself to nothing at all, not even to take care of the data I contribute. Only on a legally immature medium as internet, where a contract can be signed with a click using a nickname (or that is what we are made to believe) such large number of sheep will accept such a contract. If the community were obliged so sign up with a written signature, OSM would have no contributors anymore. Regards, Gert Van: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] Verzonden: Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:45 PM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: all the problems we had with the license change Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and the mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF). As far as I know the new license is not even in place, the data is being deleted from users who did not agree to give up all rights to the OSMF and allow for the license to be changed at any time. so lets keep the terms clear here, thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: For me the CT has been a problem. I principally refuse to sign a contract where I can be held legally responsible for data I contribute for free; where the other party engages itself to nothing at all, not even to take care of the data I contribute. I agree on that, The CTS are unacceptable for me to. for the ODBL, I am interested in seeing how it will play out. I wil wait and see on that license. Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in the USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to ask the employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might be affected, some companies claim all employees copyright. see the discussion on the CC list. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-August/007283.html -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in the USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to ask the employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might be affected, some companies claim all employees copyright. see the discussion on the CC list. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-August/007283.html If someone is unable to sign the CTs because they don't hold copyright over their contributions then they'd be unable to legally contribute to OSM or any open mapping project regardless of the CTs. If someone is not working in a GIS field I can't see the courts considering that mapping they did on their own time as being the property of their employer. If they worked in a GIS field then it could get complicated, but none of this depends on the CTs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On 08/10/2012 07:25 AM, Mike Dupont wrote: Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in the USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to ask the employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might be affected, some companies claim all employees copyright. see the discussion on the CC list. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-August/007283.html If that's true, then their employers already have a claim on their work in OSM. That is a problem that the CTs can prevent. An FSF-style employer waiver scheme would allow US employees to contribute without the threat of this problem. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: If someone is unable to sign the CTs because they don't hold copyright over their contributions then they'd be unable to legally contribute to OSM or any open mapping project regardless of the CTs. If someone is not working in a GIS field I can't see the courts considering that mapping they did on their own time as being the property of their employer. If they worked in a GIS field then it could get complicated, but none of this depends on the CTs. After working and living in Germany for many many years, and now moving back to the US and have been forced to deal with this issue. it seems that US corporations overreach on this issue and in some cases claim all copyright from employees. It is not just want you do at work or what is related to work but also to what you do in your free time. Of course I would love to have some comfort here and hope that I am overreacting, but if you see some of the links that I posted there are scary NDAS that you are forced to sign it you want to work or contract for some companies. So the CTs and a copyright assignment would basically have to be co-signed by some peoples employers, like the fsf requires for contributors as rob meyers mentions in the next post. I wonder for example, what people who work for bing or google maps have signed and how that might affect their contributions. thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: If someone is unable to sign the CTs because they don't hold copyright over their contributions then they'd be unable to legally contribute to OSM or any open mapping project regardless of the CTs. If someone is not working in a GIS field I can't see the courts considering that mapping they did on their own time as being the property of their employer. If they worked in a GIS field then it could get complicated, but none of this depends on the CTs. After working and living in Germany for many many years, and now moving back to the US and have been forced to deal with this issue. it seems that US corporations overreach on this issue and in some cases claim all copyright from employees. It is not just want you do at work or what is related to work but also to what you do in your free time. They can claim what they want. Even if you sign such a contract it is not valid. It's called employer and not slave driver. No court will enforce such a contract. As Paul mentioned this could be a problem if you work in the same kind of business and your contributions to osm could harm your employer or let them loos business. Also using company ressources and what you learn at your job can't be used for other projects or secondary jobs. similar with patents. If you invent anything related it's owned by the company but if you invent something entirely different in your free time then it's yours. On top of all this US law probably does not consider such contributions as protected by copyright at all. This has been discussed here over and over and Russ did repeat it just 1-2 weeks ago. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Apollinaris Schöll ascho...@gmail.com wrote: They can claim what they want. Even if you sign such a contract it is not valid. It's called employer and not slave driver. No court will enforce such a contract. Mr Schöll, I have hear otherwise, first of all if you sign a contact with the plan to break it you are in a weak situation. And even if it is wrong, that does not mean you will have a job afterwards or the money to fight the case. What I am looking for for is a waiver in general for people working on collaborative projects to give to employeers, this is not just about OSM, see last post on that thread in the cc list. thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
Hi, On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:23:00 +0200 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Not dropping CC-BY-SA would send the signal that ... everything that has been said about CC-BY-SA not sufficiently protecting our data was rubbish, and that we are happy with every user choosing whichever is the weaker license for their particular purpose. Even if you should think that CC-BY-SA is just as good as ODbL, you can hardly expect OSMF to concede that! It would essentially mean that all the problems we had with the license change were only created to be able to offer an *additional* license, ODbL, thereby providing more choice the downstream users. That would hardly have been a sufficient reason. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: all the problems we had with the license change Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and the mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF). As far as I know the new license is not even in place, the data is being deleted from users who did not agree to give up all rights to the OSMF and allow for the license to be changed at any time. so lets keep the terms clear here, thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org http://flossk.orgSaving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
Hi, On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:44:41 + Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and the mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF). There is no click-through license. There is no collection of all IP rights by any one organisation. There is no OSF. What project are you talking about? As far as I know the new license is not even in place, the data is being deleted from users who did not agree to give up all rights to the OSMF Anyone who believed that agreeing to the CT would mean giving up all his rights to the OSMF has been badly misinformed. Anyone who withheld his agreement due to such a misunderstanding and now watched his data being removed is a tragic figure indeed. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On Jul 27, 2012 7:03 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 July 2012 00:14, Pavel Pisa ppisa4li...@pikron.com wrote: Dear OSMF responsible, even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia problems shows that there can be problems or complications with ODBL only licensed data. I.e imagine quite realistic scenario. I like to map marked hiking paths in our area. The guideposts texts are critical information. They are usually acquired as photos and they are hold in Wikipedia commons. We have guideposts in map as well, it would worth to run script to extract already know guideposts locations, match them with commons and run update and preparation of commons pages. But this in ODBl language derivative of database. But pages and text (i.e. locations) in commons are CC-BY-SA. Same if amenity water is imported etc. We would be in the fact forbidden to use our own data. More people would feel much more safe if they know that they can access their future contributions under CC-BY-SA as well. Now all data are CC-BY-SA compatible. I want to +1 this request, though I think I've said this already. The motivation to contribute to a project will be much lower knowing that some consumers won't be able to use the data I contribute. It'll be more like contributing to Google Map Maker. There are existing users of OSM's free geodata who do cool things with this data, and won't be able to continue to use OSM. This could be used to argue for CC-By or public domain but ODbL and CC-By-SA are the only two licenses that OSM can use right now, at no cost. CC-By-SA is also quite popular, and that is important for share-alike licenses. Database elements (e.g. coordinates) are in public domain with the new license. Only database and derivative databases are to be ODbL. Produced works have attribution-only requirements. Please read carefully the license text and previous messages on this list. Commons has no problems on accepting different free licenses, like gpl derived screenshots. With ODBL there would be even less problems, as produced works can be cc licensed with no problem. The new license may not be perfect, but it does not suffer from the problems you say. You should focus on bigger Wikipedia issues like having Google derived data on its pages (coordinates, I can give you multiple offenders), which -depending on the jurisdiction- violates G's database rights and license terms, and even it is encouraged (or it was in the past). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On 27.07.2012 23:52, Frederik Ramm wrote: On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:33:59 +0200 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: That's not the point, you still can't mix the future OSM data with CC-By-SA data in the same database and publish that. This ability to mix is one of the main features of free licensing and if you're using a license incompatible with every other project, your data becomes useless for a lot of uses. Err... share-alike licenses rarely allow any mixing. CC-BY-SA cannot be mixed with CC-BY-SA-NC; neither of them can be mixed with GFDL or GPL... so nothing new here: Any share-alike provision reduces usefulness. The relevant ability to mix here is the ability to mix content, rather than licenses. Share-alike licenses do allow that just fine as long as (almost) everyone uses the same one. That's the only reason why e.g. the GPL tends to work in practice. Mixing of share-alike content stops working when people decide to use incompatible licenses for whatever reason. ODbL, with its lack of share-alike for produced works, is already one of the more liberal share-alike licenses. Because of the problems with mixing content under different share-alike licenses, the popularity of a license is often more important in practice than small differences in liberalness. What you're proposing (or seconding) here is quite difficult; it would mean having a second licensing model inside OSM and having to track exactly what is derived from what in order to find out which license can be applied. It is much more than just a flag on a user page. OSMF has been granted the right to publish the full database under the CC BY-SA in addition to ODbL, and I still think we should just continue to make use of that right for now. It is not impossible that, come CC-BY-SA 4, OSM might decide to use that. I hope that CC-BY-SA 4 will indeed turn out to be a viable license for OSM. To me that's just another reason to keep CC BY-SA available until we can decide if we like where CC is going with their licenses. Not dropping CC-BY-SA would send the signal that we still consider CC's licenses a realistic option for the future of OSM, and that we would like to stay compatible with the open content mainstream if possible. But dual-licensing, or worse, dual-licensing of a subset of the database, seems difficult. Dual-licensing a subset of the database is indeed not practical. Dual-licensing the whole database, though, isn't that difficult at all. It just requires a bit of goodwill from the OSMF and the willingness to keep that door open. Tobias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
is this possible? that would be great for continuing with cc-by-sa. mike On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote: I was personally thinking of just publishing the full planet the same way it is published today -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org http://flossk.orgSaving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
Dear OSMF responsible, even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia problems shows that there can be problems or complications with ODBL only licensed data. I.e imagine quite realistic scenario. I like to map marked hiking paths in our area. The guideposts texts are critical information. They are usually acquired as photos and they are hold in Wikipedia commons. We have guideposts in map as well, it would worth to run script to extract already know guideposts locations, match them with commons and run update and preparation of commons pages. But this in ODBl language derivative of database. But pages and text (i.e. locations) in commons are CC-BY-SA. Same if amenity water is imported etc. We would be in the fact forbidden to use our own data. More people would feel much more safe if they know that they can access their future contributions under CC-BY-SA as well. Now all data are CC-BY-SA compatible. Other uncertainty source is OSMF silence to questions and worry about license and mainly contributions terms abuse. When I have expressed my concerns to OSMF agent convicing me to agree to new CT (2011-02-15), he agreed that my remarks are valid and would be discussed at OSMF. Then no reply come. Same for my concerns in email to legal-talk list at 2012-04-02 when I stepped in discussion with Pavel Machek. Please, take extralicenses as the first class citizen. http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/ Keep that information in primary OSM database and allow JOSM to indicate CC-BY-SA compatible changes in history same as CT is shown now. I believe that many people would be happy with that and they would provide contributions through OSM instead of abandon OSM and contributing to FOSM. By the way, I am leaving for hiking without Internet access for more than two weeks now. I expect to have even some tracks and data to contribute into some open community map. But according to actual CT wording I am almost losing the right to be heard in terms or license changes vote because limit to respond is three weeks. And I and even more some other people are going for month or even more to the distant areas. Same problem with not limiting frequency and period for discussion about CT and license changes. By the way, how is is possible that on page https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new is not directly seen which agreement would be demanded from me. I looked at registration to find actual CT wording. ODBl pointer is hidden in privacy policy and no word about CT at the first glimpse. But there should be direct pointer from new page to the CT which are demanded from users for about one year already. So one registers and only then he is confronted with fact that he has to agree to someting he/she would not know in advance. Best wishes, Pavel Pisa ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
