Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 09/12/2009, at 11:46 AM, Anthony wrote: A transfer of copyright is a transfer of exclusive rights. In the US, and probably in other jurisdictions as well, it must be signed and in writing. One key difference is that someone who is granted a nonexclusive license does not have the power to sue for copyright infringement, whereas someone who is the recipient of a transfer of copyright can sue for copyright infringement - in fact, in the absense of a license to the contrary the recipient of a copyright assignment can even sue the person from whom the copyright was transferred. Additionally, in the case of an assignment of copyright, the original copyright holder can terminate the transfer after 35 years. This is not possible in the case of a nonexclusive license. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html Some other potential points against using copyright transfer: * Given one of the arguments against CC-BY-SA is that in some jurisdictions the data isn't subject to copyright, copyright assignment of the data would be a bit questionable. * Businesses and government department are unlikely to want to assign copyright to someone else, assuming that they are even the actual copyright holder. * A lot of people won't want to do that. Quite a few people won't work on various open-source projects because they require assignment. * You'd probably need to be a lot more careful. I believe that there are some jurisdictions where signing copyright transfer paperwork for something you aren't the copyright holder of is a lot more serious than plain copyright infringement. * You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above). The downside of not requiring copyright assignment is that OSMF can't sue for copyright infringement of the data. They could still sue for breach of contract and possible infringement of the database rights (I'm not sure about that, I don't know enough about EU law). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 11/12/09 10:26, James Livingston wrote: * You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above). I believe that the FSF copyright assignment scheme licences your work back to you once you sign it over. So if the OSMF did use rights assignment (let's not call it copyright assignment...), it could do the same. - 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] OBbL and forks
2009/12/11 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: Some other potential points against using copyright transfer: * Given one of the arguments against CC-BY-SA is that in some jurisdictions the data isn't subject to copyright, copyright assignment of the data would be a bit questionable. * Businesses and government department are unlikely to want to assign copyright to someone else, assuming that they are even the actual copyright holder. * A lot of people won't want to do that. Quite a few people won't work on various open-source projects because they require assignment. * You'd probably need to be a lot more careful. I believe that there are some jurisdictions where signing copyright transfer paperwork for something you aren't the copyright holder of is a lot more serious than plain copyright infringement. * You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above). The downside of not requiring copyright assignment is that OSMF can't sue for copyright infringement of the data. I think the plan was to use some very liberal license for the data (as opposed to database) which would not let them sue for copyright infringement anyway, because the license basically can't be infringed? But if the foundation wants to have copyright in the data I think it's trivial for it to have some by doing *some* of the maintenance edits on behalf of the foundation or one person (or more) transferring their rights instead of everyone doing this. Out of curiosity, could the license at all work if contributors didn't have to assign copyright *nor* database rights? Apart from the fact that updating the license would require a new vote (or licensing under ODbL v1+, similar to GPLv2+), but could that be done? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 12/12/2009, at 7:07 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: But if the foundation wants to have copyright in the data I think it's trivial for it to have some by doing *some* of the maintenance edits on behalf of the foundation or one person (or more) transferring their rights instead of everyone doing this. One of the claimed problems with CC-BY-SA was that users were worried that they could be sued by any contributor for copyright infringement. Aside from any can the data have copyright rights questions, if OSMF was to claim some copyright in the data then they're basically implying that other contributors do too, and anyone of us could sue users. Which I don't think is what they want. Out of curiosity, could the license at all work if contributors didn't have to assign copyright *nor* database rights? Apart from the fact that updating the license would require a new vote (or licensing under ODbL v1+, similar to GPLv2+), but could that be done? As I understand it, contributors don't have to (and aren't being asked to) assign either of those rights in the exclusive transfer sense. We're giving OSMF non-exclusive permission to distribute our contributions under ODbL (and future licenses, etc.). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 09/12/09 09:48, Ed Avis wrote: A related question is that if a fork happened, could it then be merged back into the main OSM project? Just like any other ODbL contribution, this could only be done if the contributors signed the Contributor Terms, or the OSMF agreed to waive the signing of them. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 08/12/09 15:14, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference. Correction: Mozilla does not require copyright assignment. (However, your point is correct.) Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
A related question is that if a fork happened, could it then be merged back into the main OSM project? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Yes it does. The LWG sought specific legal advise on this. We wouldn't be an open project if this was not allowed. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Yes. The fork must be under the ODbL. (I am not a lawyer, etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. Could a fork relicense the Content in a different way? As I understand it the Content is unrestricted by any license or copyright claim. Obviously any collection of the Content that forms a substantial amount would have to be wrapped in ODbL, so I'm not sure what it would mean in practice, but it seems that someone could re-publish an ODbL licensed database that contained Content that was restricted by a no-modifications clause or a non-commercial clause. I may not have understood the meaning of the Contributor Terms properly, but clause 2 seems to waive any rights in the Content from the contributors and I haven't seen anywhere that asserts any additional rights, so am I right to infer that the Content is not constrained in any way? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. Could a fork relicense the Content in a different way? As I understand it the Content is unrestricted by any license or copyright claim. there's nothing in the ODbL or contributor terms i can see that would forbid it, but part of the reason for that is the lack of basis in law for protecting individual (or non-Substantial amounts of) Content elements in most jurisdictions. it might work if copyright were asserted in the UK based on the sweat of the brow doctrine, but then you'd have to be very careful about not distributing it to the US and other jurisdictions where they follow a creativity doctrine. Obviously any collection of the Content that forms a substantial amount would have to be wrapped in ODbL, so I'm not sure what it would mean in practice, but it seems that someone could re-publish an ODbL licensed database that contained Content that was restricted by a no-modifications clause or a non-commercial clause. section 4.8 says, You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, the whole or Substantial part of the Contents, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License. [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. however, as you point out, this doesn't cover the Contents. i guess it's possible take the stance that there are no rights inherent in individual Contents (as in the US) and therefore any attempt to impose an ND/NC clause on the Contents isn't valid. I may not have understood the meaning of the Contributor Terms properly, but clause 2 seems to waive any rights in the Content from the contributors and I haven't seen anywhere that asserts any additional rights, so am I right to infer that the Content is not constrained in any way? yes, in non-Substantial amounts i believe so. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage as it wouldn't have that special license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage as it wouldn't have that special license. Hmm, also, my reading of the contributor terms is that the ODbL license is not granted to the public, but only to the OSMF. OSMF then in turn sublicenses the database to the public under the ODbL. Is this correct? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk'); wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage
as it wouldn't have that special license.
Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors,
and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its
contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork
purely under the GPL doesn't have.
Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often important difference.
The Contributor Terms actually still aren't clear about what exactly *is*
happening. The ODbL only applies to the database as a whole, not the
individual data. The individual data is supposed to be licensed under a
different license.
Also, the ODbL is largely based on contract law, not copyright law. Who
would have standing to sue for breach of contract should the ODbL be
breached? All contributors, or only the OSMF?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk'); wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage
as it wouldn't have that special license.
Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors,
and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its
contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork
purely under the GPL doesn't have.
Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often important difference.
Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: The Contributor Terms actually still aren't clear about what exactly *is* happening. The ODbL only applies to the database as a whole, not the individual data. The individual data is supposed to be licensed under a different license. Or, in the terms of the license: The individual items of the Contents contained in this Database may be covered by other rights, including copyright, patent, data protection, privacy, or personality rights, and this License does not cover any rights (other than Database Rights or in contract) in individual Contents contained in the Database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's a subtle, but often important difference. Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please? because, when this issue has come up before, several people expressed concern about assigning copyright (or any other right) to the OSMF. there's a liberal license grant, but no assignment of rights. since people think it's an important issue, to avoid further confusion i thought it was important to point out that difference. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's a subtle, but often important difference. Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please? because, when this issue has come up before, several people expressed concern about assigning copyright (or any other right) to the OSMF. there's a liberal license grant, but no assignment of rights. since people think it's an important issue, to avoid further confusion i thought it was important to point out that difference. A transfer of copyright is a transfer of exclusive rights. In the US, and probably in other jurisdictions as well, it must be signed and in writing. One key difference is that someone who is granted a nonexclusive license does not have the power to sue for copyright infringement, whereas someone who is the recipient of a transfer of copyright can sue for copyright infringement - in fact, in the absense of a license to the contrary the recipient of a copyright assignment can even sue the person from whom the copyright was transferred. Additionally, in the case of an assignment of copyright, the original copyright holder can terminate the transfer after 35 years. This is not possible in the case of a nonexclusive license. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html However, it's unclear how this applies within the context of the ODbL, because the ODbL only covers the the database as a whole, not the individual contributions. Also, the ODbL relies largely on contract law, not copyright law, so the owner of the copyright is to a large extent not relevant. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
