Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 12/21/10 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so we can use this as a mapping source. I.e. you are not happy with applying your (rather skewed IMHO) interpretation of legal matters to your own work, but you would prefer to force it on everyone else in the project, stopping them from using Bing until the available documentation matches your personal interpretation, is that right? Sorry I don't understand. Have you applied the same rigor to other data sources that were widely believed to be usable, e.g. Yahoo? I think I've only used Yahoo once or twice. This was before I looked into the legal foundations. Since this, I couldn't find a license from Yahoo, so I determined that I should not use Yahoo as I'm not An observation. It seems we have two camps. One like Yahoo and Microsoft who allegedly say tracing from imagery they serve and uploading it to OSM is not against their terms of service, and make no mention of any copyright rights of such works. And another camp like Nearmap, Landsat, etc. who don't mention anything in their terms of service, but instead grant the imagery under a license that allows derivative works to be released under some other CC-BY-SA compatible license. My only concern is that for the first case, even though its not against their terms of service, we still may not have the permissions from people who are able to grant us a copyright license to use such data. I see these two things as independent of one another, and I thought that we need both to be checked before we can use a service for deriving information. Of course its a real mess because as this is an international project, some countries may say that tracing does not create a derivative work so the tracer can use any license (or none) that they wish, others may say that tracing does create a derivative work so you need a license from the copyright holder to distribute any traced data. I don't know, this is just how I'm seeing it from all the evidence I've seen. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Steve, On 12/23/10 01:57, Steve Bennett wrote: That's another area wide open to discussion; my interpretation of I consider my contributions PD has always been: I don't claim any rights in what I contribute. - not: I vouch for nobody holding any rights in what I contribute. (The latter position would not allow me to delete and re-upload an object that has been edited by someone under CC-BY-SA, something which I sometimes do e.g. if a relation has 1000 versions or so.) Just curiosity here, but you're saying you intentionally delete the history of objects? No, you cannot delete the history of an object from the database through the API. Doesn't that breach the BY part of CC-BY-SA? I usually put a note=created from relation xyz or so on the new object, so anyone who wants to make the connection to the previous object and its history, can still find out - it's just not possible *automatically* anymore. But then this whole thing is a damage limiting exercise that I do when the API times out on retrieving the history (a 1000-object relation with 1000 members as a *very large* history), so it's not that I'm making anything worse ;) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-23 04:14, Anthony wrote: I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear license? This would be one point for them to clarify. Good point. I think the discussion here on the mail list is not leading to a clear license because we all are just interpreting and guessing. I've mostly posted questions, which so far have not been answered. I made a couple comments about how I understood the license (when I first read it), but I intended that as an explanation of areas that needed clarification if they differed with the intent. Actually I thought Frederik had some inside information which led him to the conclusions he made. Wouldn't it be better to tell Bing your special case/your questions? They have a legal department which should know what they want and with the questions they get feedback that their license isn't that clear as they probably thought it is. I guess I could pose the questions to Bing, but really I don't think it's efficient for me to talk to Bing directly. If there is someone on the OSM side who would like to gather up questions/comments to send to Bing, I'd be happy to relay mine. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I usually put a note=created from relation xyz or so on the new object, so Ah, cool. Maybe it's worth using a standard tag for this, as suggested in another thread. Like created_from=xxx Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted to OpenStreetMap. And how do believe they achieve that? Through copyright law? Through contract law? Through some other mechanism? Would an ODbL fork be allowed? What permits it? The only way I can see interpreting the TOS such that contributions to OSM are allowed, is that Microsoft is taking the (correct) position that the copyright, if any, on then ways produced by using the aerial maps, is owned by the person doing the mapping. Basically, this seems like another case of IP protection via wishful thinking. If your interpretation held up in court, it really would be quite horrible for the world. Anyone could stop everyone else from using facts about the world, by simply claiming that they can. Maybe this is already true in some backward countries, but I'd imagine most of the world is much more sane than that, and I believe that the part of the world I live in surely is, at least for the time being. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On 2010-12-22 01:24, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. Of course you can, but at your own risk - although I'm with you that it's very small. But as long as there is no court rule nobody knows for sure :-). Bing explicitly says it's ok for contributing to OSM. It doesn't mention any other site. In my opinion a fork has to ask for approval as did OSM if it wants certitude. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
frede...@remote.org wrote: I am sure that Microsoft has allowed data to be traced for OSM; I don't believe it is their intent to allow tracing of data for other purposes So, the question is, when MegaMap adopt OSM maps, which are generated from Bing traces, what will Microsoft think then? Do they really understand what allowing contributions to OSM means? Allowing tracing for OSM is to allow tracing for many subsequent purposes. Given the increasing commercial interest in OSM, it will be interesting to see how this evolves. I've always considered my personal contributions to OSM PD, from both yahoo and GPS traces. I've just done that via the wiki declaration box. I guess if I trace Bing imagery, I can't consider those traces PD, can I? In fact if we follow this line of reasoning, my trace would be under a Microsoft licence which permits me to only upload it to OSM, and after that is done, it is then available under CC-BY-SA to all? Ian. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Hi, Ian Sergeant wrote: So, the question is, when MegaMap adopt OSM maps, which are generated from Bing traces, what will Microsoft think then? Do they really understand what allowing contributions to OSM means? This leads us to the terrain of who determines what megacorps think or understand. But generally, we have to assume that this deal has been struck after intense talks with Steve Coast who has been at, or very close to, the epicentre of the whoe licensing debate basically since it started 2007. So unless he has cunningly misled his now employer (why would he do that?), we have to assume that all parties actually do what they do in the fullest possible knowledge of the consequences. I've always considered my personal contributions to OSM PD, from both yahoo and GPS traces. I've just done that via the wiki declaration box. I guess if I trace Bing imagery, I can't consider those traces PD, can I? That's another area wide open to discussion; my interpretation of I consider my contributions PD has always been: I don't claim any rights in what I contribute. - not: I vouch for nobody holding any rights in what I contribute. (The latter position would not allow me to delete and re-upload an object that has been edited by someone under CC-BY-SA, something which I sometimes do e.g. if a relation has 1000 versions or so.) In fact if we follow this line of reasoning, my trace would be under a Microsoft licence which permits me to only upload it to OSM, and after that is done, it is then available under CC-BY-SA to all? I guess so - more precisely, available under whatever license OSM uses at that time. 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] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: That's another area wide open to discussion; my interpretation of I consider my contributions PD has always been: I don't claim any rights in what I contribute. - not: I vouch for nobody holding any rights in what I contribute. (The latter position would not allow me to delete and re-upload an object that has been edited by someone under CC-BY-SA, something which I sometimes do e.g. if a relation has 1000 versions or so.) Just curiosity here, but you're saying you intentionally delete the history of objects? Doesn't that breach the BY part of CC-BY-SA? Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2010-12-22 01:24, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. Of course you can, but at your own risk - although I'm with you that it's very small. But as long as there is no court rule nobody knows for sure :-). I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear license? This would be one point for them to clarify. Bing explicitly says it's ok for contributing to OSM. I'd say it's implicit, rather than explicit. They say you must contribute the data to OSM, which implies that they give you permission to do so. I guess the license doesn't explicitly state whether or not others are then allowed to modify or redistribute that contributed data, be they forks, or mirrors, or Bing competitors, or otherwise. But Frederik's comment (which I guess he has now withdrawn since he says he doesn't want to think about it) is the first suggestion I've heard that maybe we aren't. On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anthony, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted to OpenStreetMap. And how do believe they achieve that? Through copyright law? Through contract law? Through some other mechanism? Frankly, I don't care, and since I do not intend to get actively involved in any fork, I'll not waste my time thinking about what *they* will be allowed to do. That's perfectly fine, but if you don't care to think about it, don't make statements about what a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to do. Anyway, the community in that fork can set their own bounds of what they consider acceptable. They can even trace from Google and build on the assumption that nobody will come after them. I am sure that Microsoft has allowed data to be traced for OSM; I don't believe it is their intent to allow tracing of data for other purposes but (a) I may be wrong, (b) someone could always say that their intent doesn't matter anyway. It isn't relevant to me, or to OSM. If you don't consider it relevant to you, that's perfectly fine with me. But how people are allowed to reuse data that they contribute to OSM certainly is relevant to OSM. OSM stands for *Open* Street Map. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On 2010-12-23 04:14, Anthony wrote: I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear license? This would be one point for them to clarify. Good point. I think the discussion here on the mail list is not leading to a clear license because we all are just interpreting and guessing. Wouldn't it be better to tell Bing your special case/your questions? They have a legal department which should know what they want and with the questions they get feedback that their license isn't that clear as they probably thought it is. Bing explicitly says it's ok for contributing to OSM. I'd say it's implicit, rather than explicit. They say you must contribute the data to OSM, which implies that they give you permission to do so. I guess the license doesn't explicitly state whether or not others are then allowed to modify or redistribute that contributed data, be they forks, or mirrors, or Bing competitors, or otherwise. I think we mean the same. It's clear for OSM, unclear for the rest, right? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: David ( some others), David Groom wrote: I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery to create derived works, all the only answer is we have it. As I've said before if its there please show us where it is. Just out of interest; why are we having this conversation? Is it just to determine who is right and who is wrong and who was right in the first place and who gets extra points for being super nitpicking (hello 80n, have you never written a final document and later made a v2 of it?) and who gets to sit on the golden seat in lawyer heaven? Do you *want* to use Bing imagery but feel you cannot? Or do you not want to use Bing imagery and are looking for a reason? I mean, every now and then I enjoy being a tongue-in-cheek smartass myself, but somehow I have the impression that not only has this discussion left the ground a while ago, no, meanwhile someone has cut the tether as well. By all means, if that's what floats your boat, continue - but you'll excuse if meanwhile I'm a little bit pragmatic and trace some aerial imagery. I'm sure it is wrong somehow, but I like the outcome. I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so we can use this as a mapping source. If the folks at Microsoft really do have the permissions to and grant us the permissions to license derived works as we wish, (even under the condition that they are uploaded to osm.org), they would come on this list and tell us directly whether we have the permission or not. As I mentioned before if this is not sorted out, conflicts will arise where two contributors are both working on the same feature, one believes we have the legal right and community norm to use Bing imagery to trace that feature, and another will think we don't have the right and want to create the same feature from their GPS survey. We cannot just divide and say trace if you want and don't if you don't think its okay. We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have this conflict. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 20/12/10 10:00, David Groom wrote: Why are we having this conversation? Because every now and then someone makes a statement along the lines that we have a licence which allows us to use Bing Imagery for tracing, and as far as I can see that is not backed up by any evidence. It is backed up by the evidence provided. When anyone details their concerns about this, the only answers that are ever given is we have permission to do it, They are pointed to the relevant documents. And an explanation of the combined results of those documents is offered. Which indicate that we have permission to do it for the reasons that have previously been given. Do we have any legal experts who have looked at this evidence? What is their opinion? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On 21/12/10 10:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM In what way would Bing traced data conflict with BY-SA? OSM is currently licenced BY-SA. Bing-derived data from OSM editors must be contributed to OSM. Bing data will therefore currently be licenced BY-SA. community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so we can use this as a mapping source. OSM isn't going to be licenced BY-SA much longer. While it is, the Bing-derived contributions in OSM will be included with the BY-SA version. If the folks at Microsoft really do have the permissions to and grant us the permissions to license derived works as we wish, (even under the condition that they are uploaded to osm.org), they would come on this list and tell us directly whether we have the permission or not. What we have is sufficient permission to upload Bing traced data to OSM under the CTs. OSM can then licence the data as they have stated they will. Which, currently, means under BY-SA. We do not have permission from Bing to licence the data differently anywhere else. And contributions to OSM should be under the CTs. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Andrew Harvey wrote: We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have this conflict. We do have a norm as a community. 99% of people are tracing from Bing imagery and you're not. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Someone-already-had-a-look-at-the-Bing-Terms-of-Use-tp5804802p5855482.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] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Hi, On 12/21/10 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so we can use this as a mapping source. I.e. you are not happy with applying your (rather skewed IMHO) interpretation of legal matters to your own work, but you would prefer to force it on everyone else in the project, stopping them from using Bing until the available documentation matches your personal interpretation, is that right? Have you applied the same rigor to other data sources that were widely believed to be usable, e.g. Yahoo? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Phillip, On 12/21/10 16:43, Barnett, Phillip wrote: So people who have not (yet) accepted the CTs can't use Bing? Is that really the case? I think Rob was slightly wrong when he said: We do not have permission from Bing to licence the data differently anywhere else. And contributions to OSM should be under the CTs. We do indeed have permission from Bing to trace the data and incorporate it in OSM, whatever OSM's license, and independent of the CT. (This means they put quite some trust in us not doing stupid things because if OSM were to change its license to the dreaded everything belongs to Frederik license then so would the data traced from Bing until that time.) This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Anthony, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted to OpenStreetMap. 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] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse? David ( some others), David Groom wrote: I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery to create derived works, all the only answer is we have it. As I've said before if its there please show us where it is. Just out of interest; why are we having this conversation? Is it just to determine who is right and who is wrong and who was right in the first place and who gets extra points for being super nitpicking (hello 80n, have you never written a final document and later made a v2 of it?) and who gets to sit on the golden seat in lawyer heaven? Why are we having this conversation? Because every now and then someone makes a statement along the lines that we have a licence which allows us to use Bing Imagery for tracing, and as far as I can see that is not backed up by any evidence. When anyone details their concerns about this, the only answers that are ever given is we have permission to do it, or are personal attacks on the motives behind those asking the question. David Do you *want* to use Bing imagery but feel you cannot? As I've said in my earlier I post's I am using Bing Imagery David Or do you not want to use Bing imagery and are looking for a reason? I mean, every now and then I enjoy being a tongue-in-cheek smartass myself, but somehow I have the impression that not only has this discussion left the ground a while ago, no, meanwhile someone has cut the tether as well. By all means, if that's what floats your boat, continue - but you'll excuse if meanwhile I'm a little bit pragmatic and trace some aerial imagery. I'm sure it is wrong somehow, but I like the outcome. 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
