Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) On 18/04/11 22:41, Simon Ward wrote: The only restriction I have seen is that some software developers perceive reciprocal licences as a hindrance because the reciprocal licenses prevent them from removing freedoms from the end user. Yes they never seem to work out that they are users as well. The GPL doesn't explicitly mention commercial distribution (except for when providing an offer of source code), but does say that charging for the software is not excluded. I think that is far less ambiguous. The CTs are more similar to the FSD than the GPL. The FSD states: Free software does not mean noncommercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - Rob. CT 1.2.4 (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms) citatation Rights Granted : Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights *explicitly* include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. citation off But this phrase in article 2 is directed to OSMF (which we grant certain rights) as the previous phrase says so. And OSMF limits itself to non-commercial activities only. There is something wrong here... Especially as it states explicitly. Commercial use is not just allowed, but explicitly allowed. Instead he original phrase sounds hostile to me... what about you ? Ths phrass could have been something like: You hereby grant OSM(F) a blablabla license to do any act to stimulate open and free application of OSM geodata , these acts being subject to approval of the OSMF members and 2/3rd of the active memberpool of OSM. The license could refer to a number of well established organisations in the open and free world for definitons and limitations, or list those in full. Regards, Gert. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: [some hard-to-follow stuff] Gert - could you quote in the same way that everyone else does, please? i.e. no top-posting, snip the bits of the message you're replying to, prefix each line of quoting with , line-wrap your quotes properly. It would make it much much easier to work out what you're on about. Thanks. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Rights-granted-to-OSMF-Section-2-of-the-CT-tp6280338p6286723.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 19/04/11 11:18, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Instead he original phrase sounds hostile to me... what about you ? The rights need to be granted in that way so they can be passed on to users. So, no, it doesn't sound hostile. It sounds like it makes the operation of OSMF in-keeping with its charter possible. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Thanks Grant, I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe unclear: What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor terms mean: From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. As written down it seems opposite to the OSMF statutes and memorandum... Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. “commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 04/18/2011 10:06 PM, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. “commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. Since there are licences that explicitly exclude commercial use that used in projects branded open (OpenCourseWare being a particularly egregious example of this) it is worthwhile mentioning commercial use, however vague it is as a concept. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of copyright is a no go for some. 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17/04/11 09:51, Florian Lohoff wrote: But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of copyright is a no go for some. GCC has hardly been unsuccessful, though. Apache either. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Eugene, On 04/17/2011 06:39 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Some people have problems with section 2 of the proposed CT because of granting of rights to OSMF. [...] Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors True. Also, some people misrepresent the CT as being a copyright assignment or even transfer of copyright when indeed it is only a narrow, qualified permission to relicense; even of OSMF were taken over by the lizard men they would not be able to choose a different license unless that is free and open and accepted by 2/3 of active mappers. So I really don't see the problem. I'd hate to see someone go and say we don't want your contribution. But if any mapper really believes that at some point in the future, they will want to withdraw their data from OSM because 2/3 of mappers choose a free and open license that this mapper might not be comfortable with - then that mapper's attitude is simply not something that we can live with in a community project, where lots of others will have built upon that mapper's work by that time. If we wanted to accept that mapper's contributions, we would always have to keep them separate and flagged please don't build on this as it may be withdrawn later. That is not feasible for this edifice we're erecting together. Hard as it is, but if someone is not willing to make that commitment then they cannot be part of the project. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related to the legal system in this world. Many people just don't want to be involved in that. We click everyday on each piece of software, upgrade or whatever website, to such an extent that we cannot read those CT's anymore, let alone obey in any sense. If I need something for business, or for surviving; I may click. If it's someone that wants something for me, I won't click. What bloody arrogance has an organization that gets stuff for free (OSM) to make me oblige to sign *any* contract. That is why I won't click in favor, nor against the CT. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Eugene Alvin Villar [mailto:sea...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 7:18 Aan: John Smith CC: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). I understand though that some may have used the no central body as a promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a long time now. ___ 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So this should be less problematic than the FSF situation. That is like writing a song, and grant the rights to do with it what he wants to the publisher. You seen where that leads to in the music business. Same for OSM. The CT-phrase in particular must be copied from them. Gert ___ 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:06 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So this should be less problematic than the FSF situation. That is like writing a song, and grant the rights to do with it what he wants to the publisher. You seen where that leads to in the music business. Same for OSM. The CT-phrase in particular must be copied from them. You seem to imply that *all* music publishers are evil. Some are evil, some are not. But just because there are some music publishers who coerce artists to give up their rights, doesn't mean that OSM is also evil. I'd like to see you say to the FSF that they are as evil as many of the RIAA companies for having copyright assignment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Hi, On 04/17/2011 10:51 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote: But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of copyright is a no go for some. Firstly, in the CT case we're not talking transfer of copyright. Secondly, I have no evidence about whether, on the whole, the net effect on GCC is negative because of those non-submitted patches; it is possible that if another license regime were found for GCC, other patches would be non-submitted instead. Thirdly, this is a situation in which pragmatism and ideology clash. I tend to be a nasty ideologist in many situations, but I think a large project like OSM demands that everyone is willing to make some compromises for the project to flourish. I'd prefer to have pragmatic people who help us build the map than ideologues who explain their myriad no gos to me. I'd love to be able to convince these people to work with us on the things that really matter for the future of OSM, but if they are unwilling to be pragmatic then let them go and found their own, ideologically clean OSM. realosm.org is still available. I'm sure they will have great discussions there, full of energy and positive attitude, a real sense of community and the ideal climate to really get things done. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'd hate to see someone go and say we don't want your contribution. But if any mapper really believes that at some point in the future, they will want to withdraw their data from OSM because 2/3 of mappers choose a free and open license that this mapper might not be comfortable with - then that mapper's attitude is simply not something that we can live with in a community project That rather neatly sums up the position taken by OSMF doesn't it? Their attitude of we don't want your contribution is definitely not something we can live with in a community project. Everyone has made an irrevocable contribution to OSM. Nobody is threatening to remove their own data. It's just OSMF that is threatening to remove OTHER PEOPLE's data. That is exceptionally unpalatable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs stipulate the opposite. Simon Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So this should be less problematic than the FSF situation. That is like writing a song, and grant the rights to do with it what he wants to the publisher. You seen where that leads to in the music business. Same for OSM. The CT-phrase in particular must be copied from them. Gert ___ 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Am 17.04.2011 11:59, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related to the legal system in this world. Many people just don't want to be involved in that. We click everyday on each piece of software, upgrade or whatever website, to such an extent that we cannot read those CT's anymore, let alone obey in any sense. If I need something for business, or for surviving; I may click. If it's someone that wants something for me, I won't click. What bloody arrogance has an organization that gets stuff for free (OSM) to make me oblige to sign *any* contract. You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF? Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might be implicit. You are simply replacing that fuzzy contract with a, not perfect, but at least with most terms spelt out, new agreement. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 11:12, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF? Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might be implicit. You are simply replacing that fuzzy contract with a, not perfect, but at least with most terms spelt out, new agreement. Absolutely. Lets be quiet clear about this. Anyone who contributes to OSMF is (on any analysis) permitting OSMF to use their contribution. In some jurisdictions for OSMF to use the contribution would (at least sometimes) be an infringement of one or more intellectual property rights belonging to the contributor. That means that there would be, without any contributor terms, an implied licence grant to OSMF. But what exactly is OSMF allowed to do with the contribution and for how long? As Simon says, without spelling it out both OSMF and the contributor will be in doubt about it. That's messy and unnecessary. So spelling out the licence is good practice. Spelling out the licence also allows anyone doing any kind of due diligence to check whether its OK for them to use OSMF's data (after all, if OSMF can't tell what their rights are, a downstream user will be in more doubt). Now, concerning clause 2 specifically - per the title of the thread - what is there to object to? In practice a world-wide licence is essential for the web. If the licence were revocable or time limited OSMF would have to provide for an Orwellian removal of data in any downstream product (as well as from the map itself, which of course is much easier) and so on. The licence terms are pretty normal for this kind of activity and not, as far as I can see, unduly onerous. If you want OSMF to make use of your data you need some kind of grant like this. It is also nonsense to suggest that it is anything like commercial licence agreements. It would be very unusual for commercial publishers to accept a licence of that kind (not unheard of, but unusual, particularly in the music industry). Now the contributor terms say more than simply clause 2. They don't just ask for a licence, they ask for what looks like warranty (although this is contradicted by clause 6) and for a limitation of liability on OSMF's behalf. I can see arguments for an against such a thing. Similarly OSMF offers various things in return: attribution and some limitation on the kind of licence it will use for the data. You, or anyone else, might think that these extra terms make the overall deal a bad one. You might want (for example) OSMF to be more restricted in what it can do with a contribution. But that is a different argument from arguing with clause 2. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Thank you for your polite qualification. Among a thousand words you point out the only opposite. If I grant, I decide how and when, not OSM(F). The whole process of ODBL and CT is all about data-protection and not about free data. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 12:14 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs stipulate the opposite. Simon Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So this should be less problematic than the FSF situation. That is like writing a song, and grant the rights to do with it what he wants to the publisher. You seen where that leads to in the music business. Same for OSM. The CT-phrase in particular must be copied from them. Gert ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF? Will you sent me a copy ? OSMF did not even exist when I signed up, so I doubt if there is another agreement then a single sided. And I still doubt that OSMF is representing the community in a way there statutes say. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 12:12 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might be implicit. You are simply replacing that fuzzy contract with a, not perfect, but at least with most terms spelt out, new agreement. 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Mikel, stop trying to smooth talk. The CT says fundamentally nothing about GPS and entering data, but talks just about transferring rights to an arbitrary group of individuals called OSMF, members of the osm community, (currently)with and (in the future?) without the best intents for the project. So do not try make it more fuzzy then it is. The License is about letting OSMF decide how the project will go regarding the open and free aspects of OSM. That is is the *pain*. It's about the future of the project regarding its core, being free to anyone, and not have this decided by a foundation, however good the current intentions are. The CT tries to safeguard the open and free aspects, but the wording is really binding, and we all know that legal texts are there to be interpreted . We all know that also 2/3 of active contributors will always be found, there are simply too many people that don't matter, and do what they're asked. In addition to that a lot of us don't like this license stuff. And don't like to be submitted to contracts if not absolutely necessary. And don't like the principle of defending any imaginary legal rights by contracts. if one day the OSM will be competitive qualitatively with commercial GEODATA the data will be copied before we notice, and their lawyers (and there will be a bunch of them) will have no problem with our stupid licenses. And we will all stand back and wonder how ! Gert Gremmen Van: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 14:41 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) On 17/04/2011 13:14, Francis Davey wrote: [snip] You, or anyone else, might think that these extra terms make the overall deal a bad one. You might want (for example) OSMF to be more restricted in what it can do with a contribution. But that is a different argument from arguing with clause 2. And for information to several respondents is a restatement of *intent* behind clause 2, (thanks Francis for talking about the structure and about how well or not it works): OpenStreetMap is fundamentally about you going out with GPS devices and entering your results, often augmenting them with tracings and refinements from Yahoo and now Bing imagery. Your contribution completely belongs to you whether or not you continue to participate and, generally, when you die it is passed on to your estate and heirs for a set number of years. Clause 2 asks that subject only to the must of re-distribution under a free and open license and the option of first level attribution, you freely throw your contribution into the pot. Future decision making is now subject to collective, not individual, decisions. In the case of imports, it is our intent that if the data is conformant with the then current end-user license, there should be no legal bar to importing it. It is then up to future generation to look at any conflict with any new license and decide whether to excise the data or abandon the change. There is also a moral duty on the current generation to decide how much they want to tie the hands for the future. There were also questions about the fate of a proposal regarding imports to extend the preamble of the clause like this: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below and to the extent that you are able to do so, ... The License Working Group is happy with the primary intent of the addition but felt that there were unfortunate side-effects if included in the general terms. I personally do not currently see any obstacle to special accounts being set up for specific discrete imports with this wording. This would also give the community a chance to monitor what it feels are good/bad candidates without being overly proscriptive, something we lack at the moment. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
And I am perfectly happy with that -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 15:14 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) It is exactly the issue that I can't give you a copy of the prior terms (and the argument applies equally well to whatever the agreement could be construed to be for the mappers that started prior the founding of the OSMF). Simon Am 17.04.2011 14:12, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF? Will you sent me a copy ? OSMF did not even exist when I signed up, so I doubt if there is another agreement then a single sided. And I still doubt that OSMF is representing the community in a way there statutes say. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 12:12 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might be implicit. You are simply replacing that fuzzy contract with a, not perfect, but at least with most terms spelt out, new agreement. 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 ___ 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Assumptions, assumptions. There is no legal relation between me and OSMF (full stop). I provide all my contributions as PD, and I want OSM to do the same to the world. I do not need a license nor a CT to contribute. And if OSMF (whoever they may be) wants that to be the case, I step out. A PD button is not acceptable for me either, as I refuse to create a legal relation between me and OSMF for my *givings* to the world (however futile they may be), as I do not recognize OSMF as representing OSM. If OSM(F) want to re-own (capture it) my earlier contributions, no problem. But I won't CT (nor refuse it, because that way I recognize its existence). Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Francis Davey [mailto:fjm...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 15:07 Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. CC: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) On 17 April 2011 13:12, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF? Will you sent me a copy ? OSMF did not even exist when I signed up, so I doubt if there is another agreement then a single sided. And I still doubt that OSMF is representing the community in a way there statutes say. A copyright (or other IP) licence doesn't have to be written down for it to be legally effective. If you uploaded any data to OSM (before or after OSMF came into existence) an objective observer would assume that you intended it to be used as part of OSM and that you were permitting its use even if you owned intellectual property rights in the data you contributed. In other words, whether you realised it or not, you did grant some kind of a licence. What is more, every time you upload data the same is true: some kind of licence will be implied even if you never signed anything. What the status and extent of the licence was and is will not be an entirely easy question to answer. The community has changed over time and community norms or rules are likely to be relevant to the kind of licence you gave at the beginning. Before OSMF existed you cannot have been giving them a licence (obviously) but you must have been giving some kind of permission. Now a useful question is: what kind of permission are you happy to give for the use of the data you upload? You must hope that someone will be able to use it otherwise you wouldn't be contributing it. Whether OSMF represents the community isn't really a legal question I suspect so not relevant here. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 04/17/2011 04:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: And if OSMF (whoever they may be)wants that to be the case, I step out. That seems a reasonable resolution. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 18:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: 2. Has the OSMF any commercial intentions ? I cannot imagine that OSMF want to sell the OSM-database to anyone (??!); or is the following phrase meant to transfer (sub-license) the right for commercial applications to our customers and does it need better words ...! From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. The OSMF is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales, the foundation has no paid staff and it is made up exclusively of unpaid volenteers. The OSMF board is made up of democratically elected volenteers. I am not an OSMF apologist, the OSMF definitely does have warts like: Where are the Board Minutes for the last few months? or what happend to the GPS2Go program?... and other gripes... But I am reminded they are volenteers too. The income and capital of the Company shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Company; and no part of the income or capital shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, to the members of the Company, whether by way of dividend or bonus or otherwise in the form of profit. source: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_Association 80n was treasurer when the OSMF was formed. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Thanks Grant, I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe unclear: What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor terms mean: From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. As written down it seems opposite to the OSMF statutes and memorandum... Regards, Gert The OSMF is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales, the foundation has no paid staff and it is made up exclusively of unpaid volenteers. The OSMF board is made up of democratically elected volenteers. I am not an OSMF apologist, the OSMF definitely does have warts like: Where are the Board Minutes for the last few months? or what happend to the GPS2Go program?... and other gripes... But I am reminded they are volenteers too. The income and capital of the Company shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Company; and no part of the income or capital shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, to the members of the Company, whether by way of dividend or bonus or otherwise in the form of profit. source: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_Association 80n was treasurer when the OSMF was formed. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Thanks Grant, I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe unclear: What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor terms mean: From CT 1.2.4/2 These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. As written down it seems opposite to the OSMF statutes and memorandum... Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's probably good that this is mentioned explicitly. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Some people have problems with section 2 of the proposed CT because of granting of rights to OSMF. Section 2 of CT 1.2.4[1]: [...] You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. [...] But to reiterate a point I raised before, this is not a new thing in Free/Open projects: Apache Software Foundation Contributor License Agreement[2]: [...] You hereby grant to the [Apache Software] Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. [...] Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). I understand though that some may have used the no central body as a promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a long time now. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind Linux, which could be due to the strong sharing clauses of the license. I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over Neither have I, but others have as comments to that extent were on the wiki. GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). That's hardly a reason, if GMM was published for personal use someone is bound to be able to convert it to garmin format just like others created tools to use OSM data on Garmin devices. I understand though that some may have used the no central body as a promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a long time now. The FSF have 20 years of not only expressing strong opinions about moral aspects of licensing, but they have stuck to their guns, something that the OSM-F hasn't done, SteveC states at various times in the past he will only support share a like licenses, yet the ODBL and CT both weaken this stance considerably. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind Linux, which could be due to the strong sharing clauses of the license. The virality (or share-alikeness) of a license is orthogonal to whether contributors assign rights or not to a central body. The FSF have 20 years of not only expressing strong opinions about moral aspects of licensing, but they have stuck to their guns, something that the OSM-F hasn't done, SteveC states at various times in the past he will only support share a like licenses, yet the ODBL and CT both weaken this stance considerably. On the share-alike, I disagree, but this is a personal preference. I like the share-alike aspects of ODbL over CC-BY-SA for OSM data. You think ODbL weakens it, but I like it because you have access to the derivative data and not just the final product. On sticking to ones guns, this could be a plus (being consistent) or a negative (being stubborn). Same with the converse: being flexible vs. being wishy-washy. Comparing the FSF to OSMF in this way without considering the context is not very persuasive. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
