Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 19 April 2011 13:46, Anthony wrote: > > > My jurisdiction is Florida. OK. Mine is England and Wales. Licenses operate on different principles here as they do with you, so we can leave it there. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
Richard Weait wrote: > > The OpenStreetMap database is currently available as CC-By-SA. Users > are indicating their willingness to relicense their contributions, or > not, under ODbL. Current edits are CC-By-SA. The OSM db is currently > CC-By-SA, only. > I am not sure that gets to the point 80n was trying to make. My understanding of the argument is the following: As you say, OSM is currently CC-BY-SA only. Therefore, any data you download from OSM, e.g. the data you download into josm, is CC-BY-SA only. CC-BY-SA does not allow you to sublicense and requires derivatives to be CC-BY-SA. Once you accept the CT, you state that for all uploads (both future and past) you make to OSM you "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". CC-BY-SA does not give you the right to do the _any act that is restricted by copyright_ part. So you are not allowed to upload the data under the CTs. What OSMF then does with those uploads, whether it distributes them under CC-BY-SA, ODbL or any other license of its choosing is irrelevant, as you (the mapper) weren't allowed to contribute the data under the CTs in the first place. As OSMF is not the licensor under the current model, but the individual mappers, you are also not uploading the data back to the original author, but an independent third party (OSMF). I am not going to judge the validity of the argument and leave that up to the lawyers. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Are-CT-contributors-are-in-breach-of-the-CC-BY-SA-license-tp6280648p6284103.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 18 April 2011 15:09, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Francis > Thank you for your patience and the detail of your answers. > > This whole thing is a complicated business and the subtleties when > various different licenses and so forth are combine are often > unexpected. That's fine. I'm always happy to help. You caught me at a weekend when there was plenty of time to think about it. I won't try and answer your questions about "distribution" because I don't think add anything to what we already know _and_ because there's some academic argument as to exactly what the "distribution right" means. I don't think this is the place to rehearse those. No body can be blamed for finding this difficult. Anyone trying to do something radically new - and OSM is fairly radical - will often find themselves caught by laws that weren't designed with them in mind. Copyright law is not really designed to deal with crowd-sourced map projects :-). -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor > terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach > of the CC-BY-SA license. It seems to me that you are confused, but I think I see where that originates and have fixed it. The OpenStreetMap database is currently available as CC-By-SA. Users are indicating their willingness to relicense their contributions, or not, under ODbL. Current edits are CC-By-SA. The OSM db is currently CC-By-SA, only. In Phase 4, accounts that have not accepted CT/ODbL will be prevented from further editing. Accounts which have accepted will continue to make CC-By-SA-only edits to the CC-By-SA database. CC-By-SA planet files, etc. will continue to be publisheduntil the end of Phase 4. The last of these CC-By-SA-only edits will be the removal of the last CC-By-SA-only data, leaving only contributions approved by the authors for both CC-By-SA and ODbL. That db of CC-By-SA and ODbL-approved data will be published as the last CC-By-SA OSM planet file. Then, Phase 5 begins. That same db from the end of Phase4, consisting only of data approved by the contributors for both CC-By-SA and ODbL, will be published as the first OSM ODbL-only database. Editing of this ODbL database, will continue by ODbL-accepted accounts as ODbL-only edits. I have clarified the Phase 4 title in the Implementation plan[1]. It said, "CC-BY-SA edits no longer accepted" and now reads, "PHASE 4 - "Decline" accounts deactivated." The intent and function of Phase 4 has not changed but the title is now more direct. I apologize for your confusion. Best regards, Richard [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
Francis Thank you for your patience and the detail of your answers. This whole thing is a complicated business and the subtleties when various different licenses and so forth are combine are often unexpected. 80n On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Francis Davey wrote: >> >>> That is the situation you are describing. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "the situation you are describing", but > > Ah, this is where we are probably at cross purposes. I am sorry for > that - its been a long thread. 80n's original query concerned > uploading work to OSMF by someone who has agreed to the contributor > terms. That is a sublicence (because it is expressed that way) and > that is something which CC-BY-SA does not permit (I think we agree on > that point). > >> it's not how CC-BY-SA works, since CC-BY-SA specifically says that it >> does not grant permission to sublicense. Instead "Each time You >> Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the >> recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and >> conditions as the license granted to You under this License." >> > > ... and my mistake, yes of course the right to sublicense applies only > to derivative works. Under the US 3.0 at least, the CC licence grants > a right to sublicence derivative works but not the original work. > >> Under CC-BY-SA, X licenses the work to Y, Z, and any other third >> party, granting permission to distribute the work under [the terms of] >> L1, L2, or any other Compatible License. The licenses to the >> contributions of X come from X, not from Y. >> > > Yes. > >> If Y made modifications to the work, Y's license covers only Y's >> modifications. If Z then makes modifications, Z's license covers only > > No. Y's licence covers the whole of the derived work. X's licence > covers all the work as not modified by Y. Z benefits from both those > licences as against the respective licensors, which makes sense. > >> Z's modifications. I assume the reason this is done is to simplify the >> chain of title, and also to avoid complications with copyright >> transfers, inheritance, infringements, etc. On the "why" though maybe >> a CC list would be the best place to ask. >> > > Yes, that was my understanding. The CC model is a new licence to all > users of the work from the original licensor which avoids problems > with chain of title. To the extent that CC licences are not contracts > this is fine. Certainly in the UK CC doesn't rely on contract to work. > I suspect there are more difficulties with ODbL style contract-reliant > effects to third parties of this kind. > > Anyway, as you say this is fairly off topic and not what 80n asked. > > -- > Francis Davey > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
