Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

davespod wrote:
> If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct,
> then ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced 
> works (e.g., maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.

I'm restating what I said in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005650.html
, but basically, it is up to OSM to say how we require OSM to be attributed
(to define "DATABASE NAME" in 4.3a).

For a Derivative Database of OSM user-contributed data and a significant
amount of OS OpenData, it's entirely reasonable for that attribution to
mention Ordnance Survey, as required by their licence.

This is no change from what we already do, and require of others, at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright .

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5906113.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] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Ben Last]

On 7 January 2011 21:56, Mike Collinson  wrote:

> In the case of Nearmap, it is my understanding, Ben might like to comment
> or contradict, that level 1 is livable with. The real concern being the
> possible that future OSM generations might want to drop share-alike.
>

It's indeed true that our major concern is the absence of share-alike.
 Can't comment on the attribution since we haven't recently discussed
(internally) whether level 1 attribution would be ok.

Regards
Ben

-- 
Ben Last
Development Manager
nearmap.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[John Smith]

On 8 January 2011 20:37, davespod  wrote:
> If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct, then
> ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced works (e.g.,
> maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.
>
> https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc
> (see 5.c)

Richard has expressed an opinion that produced works must be attributed.

> Or am I missing something? (Probably.)

The proponents of ODBL can't even agree what it means, so what help is
there for the rest of us.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[davespod]

Richard wrote:

> For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
> have checked and no, the OS 
> OpenData licence does not refer to pubic sector information. [...]

Oops! It may read as a sense of humour failure, but it was actually a
literacy failure. Maybe, therefore, take my "reading" of ODBL, OGL or
anything else, with a pinch of salt, but here goes...

> No, it doesn't. Firstly, the only additional requirement is a downstream
> attribution requirement, which is 
> already present in the ODC attribution licences. Secondly, the OS blog
> posting expressly mentioned 
> becoming "fully interoperable" with ODC as a change from the previous
> licence.

If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct, then
ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced works (e.g.,
maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.

https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc
(see 5.c)

It seems to me, the OS's added downstream attribution requirement says that
if person A creates a derived work, then person B's work derives from person
A's work, and person C's work derives from person B's work, then person B's
licence must still require person C to attribute the OS if they publish. Now
imagine this:

1. The OS has released OS Streetview under the OGL, modified with the
downstream attribution requirement.

2. Person A traces from OS Streetview and adds to OSM database, released
under ODBL (with its less stringent attribution requirements for produced
works).

3. Person B creates a produced work (map) from OSM. 

4. Person C creates a work based on person B's work. 

By the time we get to person C, the chain is completely broken (person B
does not have to include the requirement in their licence that person C
attributes the OS). This may not be a bad thing, but seems to contradict the
additional licence term the OS had added. Now, I realise that the OGL
specifically states it is compatible with ODC attribution licences, but that
surely means the OS licence has two contradictory terms. Logically only one
of them can apply in the situation above. Not sure why we can assume that
the term specifically added by the OS is the one that does not apply. 

Or am I missing something? (Probably.)

I do take heart from the content of the blog post, but I think removing the
contradiction in the licence may be a sensible thing to request.

David
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5902118.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] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst  writes:

>[OS OpenData licence]

>But that isn't a problem now.
> 
>Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state

Does that mean it's still incompatible with version 1.0 of the contributor 
terms?

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

davespod wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > Mike Collinson wrote
> > > "It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector
> information 
> > I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!
> I'm afraid it does.

For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
have checked and no, the OS OpenData licence does not refer to pubic sector
information. My wife has expressly stated that no-one on this frigging list
is allowed anywhere near my pubic sector, let alone Vanessa Lawrence.

> So, the question is does the modification of the terms invalidate the 
> part of the OGL guaranteeing ODC-by compatibility?

No, it doesn't. Firstly, the only additional requirement is a downstream
attribution requirement, which is already present in the ODC attribution
licences. Secondly, the OS blog posting expressly mentioned becoming "fully
interoperable" with ODC as a change from the previous licence.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5901307.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] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

John Smith wrote:
> Erm doesn't that invalidate the "flexibility" or relicense in future
> people keep going on about?

I think Mike already answered that one at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005716.html
.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5900192.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] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[John Smith]

On 8 January 2011 03:12, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state "You are indicating that, as
> far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute
> those Contents under our _current_ licence terms" (my emphasis). They also
> only require that you grant rights to OSMF "to the extent that you are able
> to do so", so the fact that you can't grant rights over and above those
> required by ODbL is not a problem.

Erm doesn't that invalidate the "flexibility" or relicense in future
people keep going on about?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mike Collinson wrote:
> Thanks, David.  Bother.  Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted 
> Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling 
> a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old 
> problematic license.  Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby.

No, we won't.

OS's OGLified licence remains compatible with the ODbL, because of the
express ODC compatibility clause (which is mentioned in the OS blog
posting).

So the downstream attribution requirement may only be a problem in the
future if OSMF chooses to move to a licence without it (assuming that OSMF
considers that CT 4 gives it that right).

But that isn't a problem now.

Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state "You are indicating that, as
far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute
those Contents under our _current_ licence terms" (my emphasis). They also
only require that you grant rights to OSMF "to the extent that you are able
to do so", so the fact that you can't grant rights over and above those
required by ODbL is not a problem.

> [...]
> "It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector information

I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5900022.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] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[John Smith]

On 8 January 2011 01:33, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand.  The last figures 
> I compiled for OSM data imports are:

>From what I've been told privately by people on the inside is that
they're not happy that they've been "encouraged" to share at all, and
the lack of suitable attribution would give them the ammo they needed
to be able to not have to share in future.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Mike Collinson]

At 02:20 PM 7/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> requirement.  Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes
>
>I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
>published data under the same/similar license.

Thanks, I'll follow up with finding an appropriate office to write to in New 
Zealand unless anyone from there can help.

The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand.  The last figures I 
compiled for OSM data imports are:

CC-BY: 10  (Australia 9 (possibly + 2?),  New Zealand 1) 

CC-BY-SA: 13 (Poland 1, Germany 5*, Czech Republic 1, Wikipedia 1, France 1, 
Sweden 1, The Netherlands 2, UK 1, Australia 1 [Nearmap]) 

* The German figure is apparently mostly or all due to data being specially 
licensed to OSM as CC-BY-SA by request.


Mike





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[John Smith]

On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> requirement.  Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes

I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
published data under the same/similar license.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Mike Collinson]

At 08:36 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to
>> do with the end user license:
>>
>> 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s holder’s option, OSMF agrees to
>> attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided,
>> currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.
>
>This would only be useful if there is a chain to follow it back to
>OSM, this is specific to OS/Nearmap type situations, they don't
>require explicit attributions with map tiles, but they do require
>attribution can be found, and while OSM offers to attribute on their
>website, downstream may not be subject to the same requirements which
>is where clause 3 breaks or contradicts clause 4.

Thanks, now I understand. You are entirely correct that there is no perpetual 
guarantee of a chain to follow back to OSM (and thence to a third party).  
Clause 4 only provides what I call level 1 attribution as described below.  It 
can survive and is practical and courteous to implement even if the 
distribution license, (i.e. a successor to ODbL), eventually went completely 
PD, which is why there is no contradiction or breakage by clause 3.

In the case of the UK OS, there is a switch from a potential requirement for 
level 4 attribution to a clear requirement for level 1, so the Open Government 
Licence is definitely good news for handling highly granular data.

In the case of Nearmap, it is my understanding, Ben might like to comment or 
contradict, that level 1 is livable with. The real concern being the possible 
that future OSM generations might want to drop share-alike. 

In the case of CC-BY, there is some opinion that level 4 is a clear 
requirement.  Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes data 
under this license, I have therefore written to the Australian Attorney 
General's Office requesting explicit permission to use attribution level 1 and 
2 with level 3 on a best effort basis.


Mike

Third-Party Attribution Levels

Level 1:

OSM(F) acknowledges third party sources on its website or however 
technology/social trends change in the future.  There is no attempt to get end 
users of OSM data to do the same.  This is what CT clause 4 does, and only 
this. 

Level 2:

When any OSM data is "published", i.e. copied from an OSM(F) website via a 
planet dump or API, XAPI call, there is something physically present in the 
material transferred that acknowledges third parties.  It is LWG policy to 
implement this.  That something might be a complete list of third party sources 
used any where by OSM plus their preferred attribution language. Or it might be 
a link back to the level 1 attribution statement.  At the current level of 
network bandwidth, the first is impractical for API calls for single nodes. The 
LWG is therefore adopting the link mechanism initially and this work is almost 
complete.  When working and provenly practical, the LWG will be happy to make a 
minor CT update adding it to clause 4.  Note also that encouraging tagging with 
a "source" tag is also useful in this regard, however it is only a best effort 
as not all contributors will  and source tags may get change or get deleted 
over time.

Level 3:

End-users re-distributing a copy of the OSM database or a derivative database 
are required to maintain any third-party attribution information intact. Messy 
in the case of very small extracts and in source tags, but not impossible. 
However, I would not like to force future generations of OSMers to require this 
in perpetuity, (in reality about 135 years given the current age of many 
contributors).  Consistent source tagging, and appending to source tags rather 
changing them, helps this on a best-effort but not guarenteed basis.

Level 4:

End-users have to acknowledge third-parties in maps they make.  I am vehemently 
opposed to this for any form of highly granular data.  Even if individual 
contributors are excluded, requiring a list of several hundred sources is not 
practical and will become worse when OSM data itself is just one of several 
sources used to make a map. Regretfully, imported CC-BY's "at least as 
prominent" for each source exacerbates this situation.

For a longer but outdated discussion see "5. A look at third party 
Attribution", LWG minutes 12th Oct 2010:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc
  ___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[John Smith]

On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to
> do with the end user license:
>
> 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s holder’s option, OSMF agrees to
> attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided,
> currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.

This would only be useful if there is a chain to follow it back to
OSM, this is specific to OS/Nearmap type situations, they don't
require explicit attributions with map tiles, but they do require
attribution can be found, and while OSM offers to attribute on their
website, downstream may not be subject to the same requirements which
is where clause 3 breaks or contradicts clause 4.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Mike Collinson]

Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to do 
with the end user license:

4. At Your or the copyright owner’s holder’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute 
You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a 
web page 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.
 

Mike

At 04:42 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>Which clause 3 contradicts
>
>On 1/7/11, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>>>On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson  wrote:
 Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
 governmental organisations] and I have updated
>>>
>>>IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
>>>what will happen if the license changes in future.
>>
>> Clause 4 is part of the Contributor Terms. That is the point. It survives
>> any license changes in the future.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
>-- 
>Sent from my mobile device
>
>___
>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] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Mike Collinson]

At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
>> governmental organisations] and I have updated
>
>IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
>what will happen if the license changes in future.

Clause 4 is part of the Contributor Terms. That is the point. It survives any 
license changes in the future.

Mike



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk