Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Lars Aronsson schrieb: The perpetual discussion over licenses is very tiring, but I can put up with that. What I just can't tolerate is this kind of argument that professional lawyers have some absolute authority, that trumps every contributor's opinion. I'm not saying that these lawyers are wrong, but the argument that they are correct because they are professionals is a stupid kind of argument. It's like saying that professional programmers wrote this software, so now we can't ever modify it. Most people are involved in free software and open content projects exactly because they don't like being told such things. If these lawyers told OSMF board to push totalitarian authority as an argument towards contributors in an open content project, then you should ask to get your money back, because that would be useless advice. +1 Especially if the lawyers tell, that a loss of data and so throwing away a part of the work of the community is necessary for licence change I can't tolerate this. Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/23/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote: I guess you're saying the lawyers who have advised the OSMF are not reasonable people? The perpetual discussion over licenses is very tiring, but I can put up with that. What I just can't tolerate is this kind of argument that professional lawyers have some absolute authority, that trumps every contributor's opinion. I'm not saying that these lawyers are wrong, but the argument that they are correct because they are professionals is a stupid kind of argument. It's like saying that professional programmers wrote this software, so now we can't ever modify it. Most people are involved in free software and open content projects exactly because they don't like being told such things. If these lawyers told OSMF board to push totalitarian authority as an argument towards contributors in an open content project, then you should ask to get your money back, because that would be useless advice. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote: What I just can't tolerate is this kind of argument that professional lawyers have some absolute authority, that trumps every contributor's opinion. I'm not saying that these lawyers are wrong, but the argument that they are correct because they are professionals is a stupid kind of argument. It's like saying that professional programmers wrote this software, so now we can't ever modify it. Most people are involved in free software and open content projects exactly because they don't like being told such things. +1 (I hope you didn't think I was making that argument.) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/24/2010 05:43 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote: How? By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves. I don't follow. The ODbL does the same thing to the restrictions of the DB Right and of contract law that copyleft does to copyright. It acknowledges them, asserts them, and then uses them to ensure that they cannot be used to restrict use any further thereby neutralizing them. Changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicensing under the ODbL? I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't follow. It is comparably difficult because it requires consulting the same number of people about an issue that some people have surprisingly strong objections to. Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to. But that just doesn't make any logical sense. It doesn't make any *legal* sense. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote: But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would violate CC-BY-SA. Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are *generally* mutually incompatible as they require derivative works to be placed under the same single licence. You can however mash-up the produced work under BY-SA. Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Rob Myers schrieb: Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible with cc-3.0-by-sa would be a way to avoid all loss of data and problems with asking all members and all other problems? Then we should search a compatible way ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Rob Myers schrieb: Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible with cc-3.0-by-sa would be a way to avoid all loss of data and problems with asking all members and all other problems? Then we should search a compatible way ... This would require the cooperation of Creative Commons. They would have to explicitly declare a database license as compatible with their 3.0 license. Since ODbL arose from an abandoned attempt by CC to find such a license, I think it is unlikely that they would do that. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Is that a topic that's been discussed before on this mailing list? Here it is in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations [quote] If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create a new layer by looking at the OSM data and refering to locations on it) then it is likely you have created a derivative work. If you generate a merged work with OSM data and other data (such as a printed map or pdf map) where the non-OSM data can no longer be considered to be separate and independent from the OSM data, is is likely you have created a derivative work. If you overlay OSM data with your own data created from other sources (for example you going out there with a GPS receiver) and the layers are kept separate and independent, and the OSM layer is unchanged, then you may have created a collective work. If you have created a derivative work, the work as a whole must be subject to the OSM licence. If you have created a collective work, then only the OSM component of the work must be subject to the OSM licence. [/quote] ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/26/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony wrote: Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data* encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA. No, it means the produced work is BY-SA. Which means anybody who extracts the data back out of the produced work would get the data under BY-SA. Yes I am curious about this. We should ask ODC about it (it's not in the FAQ). But looking at the text of the license, I don't think you can do that. ODbL Section 4.6 says If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form... But that is incompatible with BY-SA, which says that You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. A produced work under BY-SA can be publicly used without offering recipients the source database. But a produced work from an ODbL database cannot be publicly used without offering recipients the source database. If you receive a produced work under BY-SA you just have to maintain the attribution explaining where to get the database used to create the produced work (ODbL 4.3). And if you then fetch and use the database, you are receiving, modifying and distributing the database under ODbL, not BY-SA. So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither interferes with the rights granted under the other. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not. I suspect the creators of the ODbL wanted to have their cake and eat it too. But you can't do Well, to make sure everyone gets the recipe for the cake. ;-) that. If the data can be used in a produced work under BY-SA, then the data has to be BY-SA. No it doesn't. That's why there is such a thing as a produced work in contrast to a derivative work. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 26 July 2010 17:19, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA. Could you please point out to me code that is actually licenced under CC-BY-SA or any place where people are suggesting to you CC-BY-SA for code? CC-BY-SA is used for creative output, while free software licences are used for code. Right now, that example doesn't make sense. If you want to prove something, you should really start to use meaningful examples with real examples instead of some really far fetched scenarios that are unlikely to happen in the first place. I don't know of any sane project that would licence code under CC-BY-SA in the first place. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote: Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License It does not say this article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. There are two different opinions from two different court circuits in the US that bear on whether the images in an article constitute a derivative or collective work and therefore whether they have to be under the same copyleft licence or not. [citation needed] I'd love that citation if you can find it, not because I don't believe you but because that sounds like a couple very interesting cases. Wikipedia's actions indicate that they accept the opinion that images and text can be licenced differently. The FSF accept the conflicting opinion: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope It's possible to honestly hold and justify either position both legally and philosophically (in the US at least). :-) Actually, this was an argument for (and for some people, against) Wikipedia switching from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. Even if the courts do say that images in an article constitute a derivative work under law, they *still* might not be considered one under CC-BY-SA, because CC-BY-SA has *its own* definition of Collective Work, and says that A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License. Of course, in the case of OSM mash-ups, we're talking about images and images, mashed together in a way that makes them appear as one image. Much much more likely to not be a Collective Work, though I suppose if you overlay them in javascript after downloading them separately you've got an argument (so long as you don't print them out!). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote: Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following the terms of ODbL. Nowhere. However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to those that cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising requirement on produced works is BY-SA compatible. (Alternatively, where does the ODbL give you permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following 4.6.) 4.6 covers Derivative Databases, not Produced Works. Remember, copyright and database laws default to all rights reserved barring a license to the contrary. The ODbL is a licence to the contrary (except where it's a contract ;-) ). So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither interferes with the rights granted under the other. That's not how licenses work. By default you have no rights. A license *grants* rights. The only way for the derived work (i.e. the produced work) to be under BY-SA is if the rights holder grants a license under BY-SA. And if you receive the database under ODbL you have the licence to grant such a licence on Produced Works. Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA. CC explicitly state that BY-SA shouldn't be used for software. Incidentally, that's why the LGPL explicitly gives permission to relicense the work under GPL. Otherwise, LGPL wouldn't be compatible with GPL. Imagine a non-BY-SA licence on a work that says you may licence transformative adaptations of this work under BY-SA as long as you attribute this work. The resulting work people release under BY-SA including the attribution to the original work both satisfies the original licence and is BY-SA compatible. That is the situation with the ODbL and BY-SA. (IANAL, TINLA.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote: Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following the terms of ODbL. Nowhere. Then you don't have permission to do so. At least not anywhere that database law or copyright law apply. However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to those that cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising requirement on produced works is BY-SA compatible. (Alternatively, where does the ODbL give you permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following 4.6.) 4.6 covers Derivative Databases, not Produced Works. or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database Remember, copyright and database laws default to all rights reserved barring a license to the contrary. The ODbL is a licence to the contrary (except where it's a contract ;-) ). So where in the ODbL does it give you permission to create a derived work, to copy and distribute that derived work, etc? If the answer is nowhere, then you don't have permission to do it. So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither interferes with the rights granted under the other. That's not how licenses work. By default you have no rights. A license *grants* rights. The only way for the derived work (i.e. the produced work) to be under BY-SA is if the rights holder grants a license under BY-SA. And if you receive the database under ODbL you have the licence to grant such a licence on Produced Works. Where does the ODbL give that permission? (Hint: it specifically says you *can't* do it. 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***. Not under CC-BY-SA, under ODbL. Emphasis mine.) Incidentally, that's why the LGPL explicitly gives permission to relicense the work under GPL. Otherwise, LGPL wouldn't be compatible with GPL. Imagine a non-BY-SA licence on a work that says you may licence transformative adaptations of this work under BY-SA as long as you attribute this work. The resulting work people release under BY-SA including the attribution to the original work both satisfies the original licence and is BY-SA compatible. That is the situation with the ODbL and BY-SA. Where does ODbL say you may license transformative adaptations of the work under BY-SA as long as you attribute this work? It doesn't. It says the opposite. It says you can't sublicense the work at all. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
2010/7/23 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assume All rights reserved, provided there's any originality, creativity etc. in that planet dump which is not confirmed. usually if you find something (let's say on a bus) you will not become legally the proprietor (in the jurisdictions I know of). You have no rights whatsoever on the found object but instead have the obligation to give it back to the proprietor (e.g. by giving the found object to the bus staff, or to a government agency/ the police). Depends if the property was lost, mislaid, or abandoned, in the jurisdictions I know of. do you think it is probable that somebody mislays or abandons a data CD in a bus? I mean it might not be completely impossible, but the lost option is the most probable IMHO. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Heiko Jacobs wrote: A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data has traveled. But on his travel using the physical path OSM data changes ... The original mapper makes his GPS track suitable to existing data in OSM and other mappers will modify this data For example, there's dual-licensed software where you can either use it under GPL or pay for a commercial license. You don't have to re-download the software when you switch from GPL to commercial but this software is dual licenced frmm beginning, not relicenced, and it's GPL not CC, that may be a difference, too Richard Fairhurst schrieb: Heiko Jacobs wrote: A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... So if they violate the licence, they'll be sued by the copyright holder, right? I look forward to Richard Fairhurst suing Richard Fairhurst for violating the license on Richard Fairhurst's data. If you read my last mails you may know that I don't like any loss of data with the only reason of relicencing OSM ... Up to now the only possibility of voting to fail the licence change including any loss of data is to say, that my own data has not to be relicensed, hoping that the critical mass is not reached ... That's not very satisfiable for me and the community, if the change does not fail, because I will lose my login and all my data are lost ... You say, that Richard may suing Richard ... Because of this I just got a new idea: I say yes for changing licence and after relicencing I am suing OSMF to put the new data under CC again because it is still under CC following the contents of CC... Or any other user of ODBL-OSM may use the data still under old CC licence because it is really still under CC licence and no one can sue them with success because of they are right ... Frederik said in one mail (I don't know if also in english, I just remember his german mail) that we promised that the mappers work is protected by CC, but we remark, that this don't work, so we need a better licence. But because we made a promise, we cannot find an easy solution to transfer ALL data to ODBL and must skip some data of unreachable and declining mappers. Now we will make a new promise, that the mappers data is now really protected under ODBL, but again this may doesn't work ... We should find a way to protect data without making unclear promises ... ... and without any loss of data ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org and establish a contract. Assuming the copyright (or database right) applies in that jurisdiction. In the absence of those, there are no rights to reserve. Which is where contract law comes in (in theory). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org and establish a contract. Assuming the copyright (or database right) applies in that jurisdiction. In the absence of those, there are no rights to reserve. Which is where contract law comes in (in theory). If you've been following this thread, the whole point is that *contract law won't work in the absence of copyright law or database right*. The contract is only binding on OSM users, if anyone. It doesn't bind anyone who finds the database on a bus (or, more likely, downloads it through a P2P filesharing service). Now's the cue for SteveC to say 1) but commercial providers use contract law; and 2) I've got a lawyer who doesn't like you and lawyers are never wrong. Well, 1) commercial providers don't make it easy to download the entire database (or they make it so incredibly expensive that there are very few people to police); furthermore, it's likely that they use some sort of watermarking on those few high profile users who *do* have access to the entire database; a few mistakes unique to the individual can catch them if they leak the data, and these are likely to be high net worth corporations who can be sued for enormous sums for the leak; none of this works with OSM; and 2) feel free to have them explain in detail what's wrong with this analysis. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org and establish a contract. Assuming the copyright (or database right) applies in that jurisdiction. In the absence of those, there are no rights to reserve. Which is where contract law comes in (in theory). If you've been following this thread, the whole point is that *contract law won't work in the absence of copyright law or database right*. The contract is only binding on OSM users, if anyone. It doesn't bind anyone who finds the database on a bus (or, more likely, downloads it through a P2P filesharing service). Now's the cue for SteveC to say 1) but commercial providers use contract law; and 2) I've got a lawyer who doesn't like you and lawyers are never wrong. Well, 1) commercial providers don't make it easy to download the entire database (or they make it so incredibly expensive that there are very few people to police); furthermore, it's likely that they use some sort of watermarking on those few high profile users who *do* have access to the entire database; a few mistakes unique to the individual can catch them if they leak the data, and these are likely to be high net worth corporations who can be sued for enormous sums for the leak; none of this works with OSM; and 2) feel free to have them explain in detail what's wrong with this analysis. I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or the other way around. I pick the other way around. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). Here's what that FAQ says: What's wrong with the current licence? OSM currently uses the Creative Commons Share-Alike/Attribution 2.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/licence, or CC-BY-SA for short. The main problems that have come to light over time are: - The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data. - The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors. - Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) I tend to agree with Anthony that ODbL does very little to solve these problems. And at the same time it introduces a whole range of new problems. There would certainly be great difficulties in practical use and many many misunderstandings about what it says. Copyright is a principle that is well understood in most parts of the world. When you add to that Database rights which are not well understood even in Europe and contact law which is notoriously complex and varies greatly across juristdictions, you have a very impractical mess on your hands - good luck with that. This medicine is much worse than the illness it is trying to cure. 80n ___ 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 25 July 2010 00:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor How does 'the simplest explanation is usually the correct one' apply here? the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong I'd be surprised if all those lawyers came up with the exact same interpretations/conclusions... You get 10 people of any profession in a room you usually get 10 different outcomes... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or the other way around. I pick the other way around. Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#What.27s_wrong_with_the_current_licence.3F The main problems that have come to light over time are: * The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data. ODbL protects against the database right and against contract law. * The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors. The ODbL handles attribution differently from BY-SA 2.0 , allowing BY-SA 2.5-style indirect or project attribution. * Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that mash-ups are not derivative works. ;-) So the ODbL *does* attempt to address the issues that have been identified with BY-SA for OSM. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or the other way around. I pick the other way around. Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of course). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#What.27s_wrong_with_the_current_licence.3F The main problems that have come to light over time are: * The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data. ODbL protects against the database right and against contract law. How? * The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors. The ODbL handles attribution differently from BY-SA 2.0 , allowing BY-SA 2.5-style indirect or project attribution. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work [...] under [...] a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial. * Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that mash-ups are not derivative works. ;-) Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. So the ODbL *does* attempt to address the issues that have been identified with BY-SA for OSM. I never said it didn't *try*. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: * Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that mash-ups are not derivative works. ;-) Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. Furthermore, the idea of Produced Works doesn't work. As I've asked several times now, and never gotten a response, what stops someone from taking a Produced Work released under CC-BY and extracting the data back out of the Produced Work, thereby obtaining the data under CC-BY. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 24/07/10 16:49, SteveC wrote: Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Steve That's ad hominem tu quoque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: How? By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves. Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial. Relicencing derivative works is trivial. Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change of attribution isn't. There are major institutional contributions to OSM that might not be able to be re-attributed without great effort. And some people (mistakenly) regard that attribution as a right. So changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicencing. Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention copyright as BY is a copyright licence.) I think his point is about ODBL and not extending to produced work, what's to stop the work from being relicensed under the same license as the produced work... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: How? By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves. I don't follow. Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial. Relicencing derivative works is trivial. Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change of attribution isn't. There are major institutional contributions to OSM that might not be able to be re-attributed without great effort. And some people (mistakenly) regard that attribution as a right. So changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicencing. Changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicensing under the ODbL? I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't follow. Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the derivative work. I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to. But that just doesn't make any logical sense. If a mash-up isn't a derivative work, then the database might as well be PD (or CC-BY). If produced works aren't protected, then the data isn't protected, because the data is *contained within* the produced works. On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:17 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: As I've asked several times now, and never gotten a response, what stops someone from taking a Produced Work released under CC-BY and extracting the data back out of the Produced Work, thereby obtaining the data under CC-BY. Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention copyright as BY is a copyright licence.) If that DVD were released under ODbL, and the copy were released (legally) under CC-BY, you might have a point. BY-SA is a more interesting case as the derivative work must also be covered by BY-SA. Indeed. What's the position of the OSMF and/or the LWG on this one? Can CC-BY-SA data be combined with ODbL data to create a produced work? Or are proprietary produced works allowed, but non-ODbL copylefted produced works disallowed? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention copyright as BY is a copyright licence.) I think his point is about ODBL and not extending to produced work, what's to stop the work from being relicensed under the same license as the produced work... I think Rob's assertion is that the ODbL *does* extend to the produced work. That the produced work is still ODbL, there's just an exception from the creator of the produced work to their requirement to provide the part of the data which is not derived from the ODbL data. But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would violate CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong Steve And the advice of those lawyers that didn't suit you, such as Baker McKenzie, got buried? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:25 PM, 80n wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong Steve And the advice of those lawyers that didn't suit you, such as Baker McKenzie, got buried? You've lost me. I'm guessing you're pointing out something that happened in the last two years that I've forgotten? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Richard Weait schrieb: Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published planets, for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss. The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA. Yes indeed. Including ... We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the license upgrade, or we will not. ... the new planet which is called to be under ODBL. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode But it isn'nt, because the contributors who said yes for change don't give their home copy of their data a second time like in 7.b ... Licensor reserves the right to release THE WORK under different license terms the work = their original work and not a copy of it. But the new so called ODBL-OSM is only an vote-yes-extract of the old CC-OSM so ... 1.b 'Derivative Work' means a work based upon the Work ... such as a ... condensation ... ... is suitable, so ... 4.b You may distribute ... a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). ... also a so called ODBL-OSM ist still under CC and only under CC. A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Heiko Jacobs wrote: A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data has traveled. For example, there's dual-licensed software where you can either use it under GPL or pay for a commercial license. You don't have to re-download the software when you switch from GPL to commercial - you just pay the price and get a piece of paper that says you can now use the software under another license. Often there won't even be a separate download link. It is perfectly sufficient if someone agrees to ODbL, we can then take his data from our existing database. 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-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Heiko Jacobs wrote: A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ... I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data has traveled. For example, there's dual-licensed software where you can either use it under GPL or pay for a commercial license. You don't have to re-download the software when you switch from GPL to commercial - you just pay the price and get a piece of paper that says you can now use the software under another license. Often there won't even be a separate download link. It is perfectly sufficient if someone agrees to ODbL, we can then take his data from our existing database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assume All rights reserved, provided there's any originality, creativity etc. in that planet dump which is not confirmed. usually if you find something (let's say on a bus) you will not become legally the proprietor (in the jurisdictions I know of). You have no rights whatsoever on the found object but instead have the obligation to give it back to the proprietor (e.g. by giving the found object to the bus staff, or to a government agency/ the police). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assume All rights reserved, provided there's any originality, creativity etc. in that planet dump which is not confirmed. usually if you find something (let's say on a bus) you will not become legally the proprietor (in the jurisdictions I know of). You have no rights whatsoever on the found object but instead have the obligation to give it back to the proprietor (e.g. by giving the found object to the bus staff, or to a government agency/ the police). Depends if the property was lost, mislaid, or abandoned, in the jurisdictions I know of. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: James Livingston li...@... writes: The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material (e.g. a planet dump) on your website without requiring people to agree to a contract a violation of the ODbL?. I would certainly hope not. If it is, then the ODbL can hardly be said to be a free licence. I'm not sure anyone credible has claimed that it is a free license. The purpose of a free license is to grant permissions, not to impose restrictions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of ordered ones and zeros. It's on media of some type. You might sell the disk as is, but copying the data and selling it would be legally risky. A Reasonable Person[2] would understand that there could be copyright works included in the data on the disk. I guess you're saying the lawyers who have advised the OSMF are not reasonable people? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/23/2010 02:02 PM, Anthony wrote: I'm not sure anyone credible has claimed that [ODbL] is a free license. The purpose of a free license is to grant permissions, not to impose restrictions. The purpose of a free licence is to protect people's freedom. PD dedications and BSD licences (permissive licences) do this by allowing anyone who receives the work from its source to do whatever they like with it. Copyleft and share-alike licences (reciprocal licences) do this by restricting people as much as is necessary to prevent them from imposing further restrictions. The ODbL is a share-alike licence. If it went too far in using the laws its trying to protect against it might fail by becoming self-defeating. But I don't believe it does. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/23/2010 04:56 PM, Anthony wrote: Though, I'd say license is somewhat of a disingenuous term for something which is actually an EULA. Well, CC get to call CC0 not a licence. ;-) I agree that the ODbL isn't just a licence, but I don't think it's any more accurate to call it a EULA. Quite apart from the L, it's not just for end users, it's for distributors as well. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote: snip Enough of preamble, so here again I would like to ask the question again: What is the criterion of when critical mass is reached and thus data is lost (even if it isn't lost as data, it is lost to the project and the (editing) community)? Who gets to decide this criterion? What are the objectives of those deciding this criterion? What influence does the wider community have on setting these criteria? Will at least the full OSMF membership have a vote on the question of if it is enough. If yes, what would be the formalities of this vote? simple majority? Absolute majority of members? snip So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group. When do we get an answer to this question set? Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers. It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own sector of the planet? Liz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote: So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group. When do we get an answer to this question set? Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers. It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own sector of the planet? Dear Liz, you say, It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss... I see two problems with this, Liz. Who are you suggesting is happy? Also, there will be no data loss. No data will be lost. Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published planets, for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss. The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA. We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the license upgrade, or we will not. We'll have that informed choice. As we should. Do you advocate just taking data and re-licensing it without consent, Liz? I don't. That informed choice means that some contributors will choose not to proceed. At a minimum those who are unreachable or deceased will not be able to assent to the license upgrade. And those who make the informed decision to not proceed will have their wishes honoured as well. It is my preference that each contributor agree with ODbL and CT and allow their data to be promoted to the ODbL-licensed future OpenStreetMap. But still you create friction with your fiction. I see ODbL as a better way forward for OSM. Not just because it is designed for data from the start. Not just because it is designed in the same Attribution, Share Alike spirit that lead to the choice of the unfortunately inappropriate CC-By-SA in the first place. But also because ODbL makes improvements over CC-By-SA. I think that it is a big improvement that data is SA and Produced Works may be licensed differently. One prominent OSM contributor provides code and data and much more to OSM, but can't use the very data he contributed to OSM in his publication because he must maintain copyright in the images. Why is that? He's already given the data to OSM. Under ODbL, we fix that. He can render the data in a way that adds value for his readers, and maintain copyright in his publication. And you restate the question, how much promoted data is enough to proceed. I'll restate the answer. The same answer that you have had before. It is impossible to know how much will be promoted because the contributors have not yet had their say. And it is impossible to know how much will be enough because not all data is equal. So we will have to find out. All of us. Together. Let's see what the result is. In which ways would you like to help? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 24 July 2010 00:02, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote: So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group. When do we get an answer to this question set? Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers. It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own sector of the planet? Dear Liz, you say, It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss... I see two problems with this, Liz. Who are you suggesting is happy? Also, there will be no data loss. The reason it's similar to data loss is that OpenStreetMap will keep advancing very fast like it is now, while my data remaining CC-By-SA only will be left to bitrot (I'm probably not going to update it even myself, instead I may re-join OSM with a new account). An important strength of OSM is that it's a single database, not chunks you have to combine before using, and that it is up-to-date. So if OSM changes license, rather than fork under a new license, the old data will effectively be lost, it's only nitpicking saying it's not really lost. You also talk about choice, a lot of mappers will not have a choice to promote their contributions because of sources they have used (though I'm sure many of them will agree to relicense anyway because they don't read the legalese). I might be able to re-license under ODbL but not under CT. I'm wondering if the OSMF may include the Decline, but I can make my contributions available under ODbL option in the re-license question page, this would allow it to include data by the affected contributors in the new planet snapshots until another license change happens. At that point I may again be able to ask the sources I used if they agree with that license. I can not ask them to agree to a license that is not specified, and even myself I'm not comfortable being asked this. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote: On 23 July 2010 22:14, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote: If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of ordered ones and zeros. It's on media of some type. You might sell the disk as is, but copying the data and selling it would be legally risky. A Reasonable Person[2] would understand that there could be copyright works included in the data on the disk. We've already discussed that this would have copyright on it, but any licence imposed under contract provisions is lost, because the finder did not agree to the licence. However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org and establish a contract. And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote: On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote: So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group. When do we get an answer to this question set? Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers. It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own sector of the planet? Dear Liz, you say, It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss... I see two problems with this, Liz. Who are you suggesting is happy? Also, there will be no data loss. No data will be lost. Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published planets, for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss. The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA. We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the license upgrade, or we will not. We'll have that informed choice. As we should. Do you advocate just taking data and re-licensing it without consent, Liz? I don't. That informed choice means that some contributors will choose not to proceed. At a minimum those who are unreachable or deceased will not be able to assent to the license upgrade. And those who make the informed decision to not proceed will have their wishes honoured as well. It is my preference that each contributor agree with ODbL and CT and allow their data to be promoted to the ODbL-licensed future OpenStreetMap. But still you create friction with your fiction. I see ODbL as a better way forward for OSM. Not just because it is designed for data from the start. Not just because it is designed in the same Attribution, Share Alike spirit that lead to the choice of the unfortunately inappropriate CC-By-SA in the first place. But also because ODbL makes improvements over CC-By-SA. I think that it is a big improvement that data is SA and Produced Works may be licensed differently. One prominent OSM contributor provides code and data and much more to OSM, but can't use the very data he contributed to OSM in his publication because he must maintain copyright in the images. Why is that? He's already given the data to OSM. Under ODbL, we fix that. He can render the data in a way that adds value for his readers, and maintain copyright in his publication. And you restate the question, how much promoted data is enough to proceed. I'll restate the answer. The same answer that you have had before. It is impossible to know how much will be promoted because the contributors have not yet had their say. And it is impossible to know how much will be enough because not all data is equal. So we will have to find out. All of us. Together. Let's see what the result is. In which ways would you like to help? I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions. Answering with more questions is not particularly helpful. It strongly suggests that there are no answers. I'm not doing a standard I don't want ODBL piece, I'm asking for information on how this change is going to be implemented. More questions to follow, on implementation, but the first question should be answered first. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20/07/2010, at 9:10 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote: To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data available doesn't make the data public domain. Indeed. The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material (e.g. a planet dump) on your website without requiring people to agree to a contract a violation of the ODbL?. If you aren't violating the ODbL by hosting the data without requiring contract agreement, then that is a easy way to get around the license if copyright and database right don't apply or exist. Richard Fairhurst pointed out some legal issues about this. To quote him from higher up in the thread: Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person who is not a party to a contract (a 'third party') may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if... the term purports to confer a benefit on him. It's already been discussed way back on legal-talk, but not having a choice of law clause in the ODbL (with good reason) makes enforcing the contract part of it more interesting. I don't know how you'd go trying to use that to enforce the ODbL if the neither of the first nor second parties are in England. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, On 19 July 2010 23:16, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they didn't sign for it. I would be amazed that such a loophole exists in the first place. To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. I don't think you can make a contract that obliges everyone in the world (everyone who may ride a bus) to do something. You can have a contract where the party is responsible for any damage you suffer from them not adhering to the contract (e.g. leaving the planet on the bus). If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assume All rights reserved, provided there's any originality, creativity etc. in that planet dump which is not confirmed. I don't know what database rights directive says about such cases. The only way you could be bound by some kind of contract is if the planet dump was made in such a way that you'd have to push some button or click through something or visit a website to make use of it, for example because it was encrypted. But then if someone decides to not adhere to the license and leave the planet on the bus they may just as well strip all this information. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 11:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? This is why the ODbL has the triple whammy of not just relying on database right, copyright or (sigh) contract law but using all three. Where one doesn't apply, hopefully the others will. If copyright and DB right apply, I don't think you can strip them by geographically exporting and importing them. And if someone is breaching the contract, they can hopefully be stopped from doing so. This means that the ODbL covers (c) and (DB) where they apply, and contract law as much as it can. That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ (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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 21:04, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: If I follow that analogy, I can then use data from TeleAtlas if someone breaches the contract, which is not the case. The licence is found on their data. Since when does contract law work that way? The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd party that may download data from (I like Rob's example better) picking up a copy left on a bus. This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given Contracts aren't licenses, they don't transfer like copyright does... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ Which is what I'm curious about, what makes ODBL copyright stick if cc-by-sa copyright isn't applicable? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd party that may download data from (I like Rob's example better) picking up a copy left on a bus. The FSF have found that people almost always prefer complying with licences to being sued for damages and compliance. I don't see why it would be different for OSM(F). This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given Contracts aren't licenses, they don't transfer like copyright does... Yes, a lot of our experience and assumptions based on copyright licences don't apply to thinking about contract-based licences. A licence gives you extra permission that you would not otherwise have. So if I find a copy of (for example) Wikipedia or GNU/Linux on a bus, I do not under copyright law have permission to do very much with it. My only legal defence for copying or adapting it beyond the limits of fair use/fair dealing is the copyright licence accompanying it. By comparison a contract imposes extra restrictions on you if you agree to it. In the absence of Copyright or Database Right on a data(base) dump that I receive, I would be able to do whatever I like with it including using contract law to prevent anyone else from doing whatever they like when they receive it from me. (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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:33:44 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ Which is what I'm curious about, what makes ODBL copyright stick if cc-by-sa copyright isn't applicable? That's different from the bus example. Where copyright doesn't apply it doesn't apply and neither the ODbL nor BY-SA will stick in that jurisdiction (assuming they claim to apply to the same, uncopyrightable, thing). But the copyright will apply wherever copyright applies, and cannot be stripped by geographically exporting and re-importing the copyrighted work. Project Gutenberg is a good example of a project that contains material which is legitimately in the public domain in some jurisdictions but under copyright in others. Where the copyright doesn't stick, the database right will (where that applies). Where the BD right doesn't apply the contract element will (bus schedules allowing). The ODbL is a legal switch statement / montage / triple whammy. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:58:25 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote: How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50% voting, Of the people? The US and the EU, to name but two. When did EU member nations agree to become a country? You know that's a sore point in the EU. ;-) But the EU does have a government. - Rob ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases no they go much further, they say it shouldn't and that all databases should be PD. Just imaging if Creative Commons had been an organisation saying that copyright shouldn't apply to photographs or something, how far would they have got? That's a great strawman, Steve. Er, no, it's a totally valid comparison in the stands that SC and CC have taken. CC is pretty reasonable, gives you a ton of options. SC have thrown the toys out the pram and declared the law of the land just wrong and we all 'should' be PD. That's not very flexible and won't get very far. Your replies to my emails seem to be 'disagree with Steve for the sake of it' rather than having any content. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? This is why the ODbL has the triple whammy I like 'triple whammy' but prefer the 'three pillars of government' analogy :-) of not just relying on database right, copyright or (sigh) contract law but using all three. Where one doesn't apply, hopefully the others will. If copyright and DB right apply, I don't think you can strip them by geographically exporting and importing them. And if someone is breaching the contract, they can hopefully be stopped from doing so. This means that the ODbL covers (c) and (DB) where they apply, and contract law as much as it can. That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ (I am not a lawyer etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they didn't sign for it. I would be amazed that such a loophole exists in the first place. To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 22:07, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should. My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 22:16, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data available doesn't make the data public domain. Richard Fairhurst pointed out some legal issues about this. To quote him from higher up in the thread: Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person who is not a party to a contract (a 'third party') may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if... the term purports to confer a benefit on him. A quick talk with a friend who is a lawyer made abundantly clear that third parties don't have the right to access the data in the first place, since the data was stolen through a contract breach in the first place. It would be very very difficult to plead good faith in this case. Then again, we are talking about one aspect of the licence which may be used since it depends on your jurisdiction and the sets of law governing your jurisdiction. It will be very different in France where the concept of moral rights cannot be removed from someone. Copyrights and other intellectual property mechanisms will vary very strongly between countries. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are one-sided contracts. Some countries do not accept that they have any validity, others do. Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid if signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement. So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no contract when i pick it up and use it, but any copyright it has is preserved. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are one-sided contracts. I don’t believe they are a good example… Some countries do not accept that they have any validity, others do. …for this very reason. Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid if signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement. This is my (basic) understanding of a contract: It involves two (at least) parties agreeing, not just passively. So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no contract when i pick it up and use it, but any copyright it has is preserved. Makes sense. -- 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Why do we need contract law at all? I know some reason why people think we need it: Because database rights are drastically different to non‐existent across different jurisdictions, so we feel the need to “balance” it out by enforcing the same for everyone using contract law. I don’t agree with it. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:53 AM, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Why do we need contract law at all? I know some reason why people think we need it: Because database rights are drastically different to non‐existent across different jurisdictions, so we feel the need to “balance” it out by enforcing the same for everyone using contract law. I don’t agree with it. Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20 July 2010 09:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Of course not. But if the data is *already* public domain, then violating a contract and making the data available doesn't take it out of the public domain either. Isn't breach of contract the method that was used to put the tiger data into the public domain? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:28 AM, John Smith wrote: On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... Go ask on odc-discuss? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Simon Ward wrote: Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. You could pay your own lawyer to check it then? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... Go ask on odc-discuss? Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:33:48 +0100, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. I know you didn't. But somebody did. What's your source for the statement The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. Who was it who gave this advice? My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. I agree that there must be a reason for this, and that this is relevant to the discussion, but I do not remember it and I'm not OSMF. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17/07/10 10:00, 80n wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely* different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty. Chris Do try to pay attention and keep up with the thread ;) opps :) Just reading that now. Diane Peters of Creative Commons posted the following statement in this thread a few hours ago: There are a number of fundamental differences between CC's licenses and ODbL that at least from CC's point of view make the two quite different. ODbL is something completely different. In addition the content license and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA. Structurally there are big differences. I don't disagree, I think that I was just trying to make the point that the *intent* in terms of having a Share Alike component and having some form of Attribution is present in both licenses? Admittedly in a very different way. Anyway, it looks like it's stopped raining outsite so I going to go out and do some mapping :) Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd party that may download data from (I like Rob's example better) picking up a copy left on a bus. The FSF have found that people almost always prefer complying with licences to being sued for damages and compliance. I don't see why it would be different for OSM(F). Then I don't see what's wrong with CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 23:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Then I don't see what's wrong with CC-BY-SA. There is no proof there is anything wrong with it, just conjecture and speculation it might not be good enough. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:58 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases no they go much further, they say it shouldn't and that all databases should be PD. Just imaging if Creative Commons had been an organisation saying that copyright shouldn't apply to photographs or something, how far would they have got? That's a great strawman, Steve. Er, no, it's a totally valid comparison in the stands that SC and CC have taken. And what's the comparison, exactly? Geodata is nothing like photographs. Furthermore, you seem to be incorrect about SC saying that copyright shouldn't apply to databases or that all databases should be PD. They have said this about informational databases, such as educational or scientific database, but as far as I can tell, never about all databases. Your replies to my emails seem to be 'disagree with Steve for the sake of it' rather than having any content. C'mon Steve, you've made a ridiculous comment and I called you out on it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote: On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... Go ask on odc-discuss? Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer? You're right, much better to publicly bitch than to make an effort and ask them a simple question huh? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put to contributors. I will, but at that point I will no longer have any chances to exercise such a decision under the currently accepted change over process outlined. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 16/07/10 14:03, TimSC wrote: James Livingston wrote: / Although, as Simon Ward said Everyone has a say on whether their contributions can be licensed under the new license., I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in the process without checking they have a clear majority of contributors behind the process (and not just OSMF members). / How would you actually poll the contributors? The only way I could see it being done that satisfies everyone is in exactly the same way that the actual relicensing question is going to be asked, and that is a very heavyweight thing to do just for a what do people feel poll. If it were just a choice between CC-BY-SA and ODbL, I might agree. But this is a false dichotomy. We could write any number of licenses or revise ODbL based on feedback (except it would be better to resolve this soon). We could go PDDL, CC0 or PD. We could fork. We could do different licenses for different regions. We could do a single transferable vote or majority wins. The current relicensing question also doesn't distinguish between what I want for the future and what I would tolerate. So the question might ask in a poll is far from obvious. Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely* different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty. Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely* different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty. Chris Do try to pay attention and keep up with the thread ;) Diane Peters of Creative Commons posted the following statement in this thread a few hours ago: There are a number of fundamental differences between CC's licenses and ODbL that at least from CC's point of view make the two quite different. ODbL is something completely different. In addition the content license and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA. Structurally there are big differences. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 04:04 AM, Diane Peters wrote: The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct. I am sorry for misrepresenting SC's views on this. One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another suggestion earlier on this thread (apologies again for not inserting this comment there) to the effect that CC refuses to acknowledge that CC0 contains a license. I attributed this view to Science Commons, not to CC. I did so based on a conversation with John Wilbanks on this list some time ago. When we at CC speak of license as opposed to public domain, our focus is on function and practical effect, not formality. BY-SA and the ODbL are similarly both share-alike. The current conversation on this list has convinced me that I cannot make that claim without (extensive) qualification, though. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/16/2010 09:58 PM, Liz wrote: After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was the subject of the case. If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That would need court hearings to determine. Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to negotiate terms Geodata is restricted with contracts, so it may make sense to turn that restriction against itself. But the contract aspect is still my least favourite part of the ODbL. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. Thanks. So IceTV weren't infringing on Channel Nine's copyright as Channel Nine didn't have one on the mere facts of their programme schedule, but IceTV's combined and creativity-added database is above the creativity/originality threshold required to gain copyright protection as a (collective?) literary work? There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) Without a court precedent all we're left with is speculation... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 04:01 PM, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) Without a court precedent all we're left with is speculation... Yes. :-/ The ODbL isn't old or widespread enough for the fact that it's avoided being involved in a lawsuit so far to count in its favour yet. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. Thanks. So IceTV weren't infringing on Channel Nine's copyright as Channel Nine didn't have one on the mere facts of their programme schedule, but IceTV's combined and creativity-added database is above the creativity/originality threshold required to gain copyright protection as a (collective?) literary work? There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 18 July 2010 06:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. You implied one or more people made that claim, what was their reasoning for this? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about rights to data are vastly different that contract law is needed to balance it out—it’s apparently unfair otherwise. I don’t really believe that. It certainly harmonises things a bit more, both removing some of the loopholes in various countries copyright law which people can exploit, and removing some of the fair use provisions countries have. Of course, a loophole and a fair use provides are basically the same :) I'm still not sure how useful it will be in enforcing the ODbL in the US. Consider if Bob from the US takes the OSMF-provded planet dump, produces a North America extract and makes it available on his FTP site. Jane from the US downloads it, uses it and doesn't release her Derived Database. What can we do about it? We can't use copyright or database rights to enforce it in the US (one of the main reasons for using contract as well). Ignoring any arguments about whether she could agree to a contract by downloading it from a FTP site, the only person she could have a contract with is Bob, not the OSMF. Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also: * Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks) I didn’t realise it was that short a time period. :/ Three weeks isn't that long, if someone is on holiday. For example I'll be on a longer one later this year, with only intermittent Internet access and only reading my special email here if you need me while on holiday account, not my normal one. Not that we'd be re-licensing using the CTs by then, I don't even know if we'll have done the ODbL relicense. Regards, James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. I know you didn't. But somebody did. What's your source for the statement The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. Who was it who gave this advice? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote: How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50% voting, Of the people? The US and the EU, to name but two. When did EU member nations agree to become a country? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote: The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project is to fork it. How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can fork it? That works too. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote: I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more than obvious I'm bucking the trend... Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so vocal… ;) 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are willing to contribute their data under that license. Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising. Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous, especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL without any mass hysteria. That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA. Where's the mandate for ODbL? After more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a clue how much support there is. They do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing, since that works in your favour too. After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the fundamental problems with it, and have little interest in any other option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how many people want ODbL. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: The new contributor rights also waters down my effective veto rights to control future licenses. That's one of its great strengths - 150,000 people each with a veto is not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to change. Could you imagine if we all had vetos over every other part of the project? The new logo? Or if everyone got a veto on every post to the mailing list? None of my emails would ever get through ;-) I feel OSMF have overstepping their stewardship bounds to become the gatekeepers. I disagree - the proposed contributor terms has the OSMF being the stewards when suggesting future license changes (and presumably doing stewardship type things with getting legal advice etc) but the gatekeepers are now a large majority of the active contributors, without any effective vetos from un-contactable people. It solidifies the community as being more important than particular individuals, which I'm happy to see. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote: Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the ODbL. Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to have a better understanding of data law. (different people and areas have different licensing situations). I might even license my previous data to ODbL in a deal to get that up and running. Share alike (ODbL) is just too complex to be workable (Creative Commons agrees with me). Of course, it would not be as comprehensive as an SA-licensed OSM, but it would be more legally predictable. I have no confidence in Science Commons's evaluation of other licences when they won't even admit that CC0 has the word licence in it. It would be a bigger change from BY-SA to CC0 (CC0 is the only workable international public domain dedication system) than from BY-SA to ODbL. ODbL *is* complex and I do sometimes worry that it puts the cart before the horse in terms of protecting users of data from restrictions. But there *are* such restrictions around the world, and OSM exists for the freedom of all its users. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
