Re: [OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 20:08, Frederik Ramm > I think there is a difference, certainly morally but even legally. If > you submit, under CC-BY-SA, data to an online map which clearly does not > give the names of all contributors, and later claim that the map was > violating your terms, that is something different from publishing your > data on a web page under CC-BY-SA and then complaining that someone took > it, put it in a web map, and didn't provide attribution. When you sign up to OpenStreetMap you agree to license your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 2.0. The license includes sections like: "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium" I happen to think that the openstreetmap.org website gives credit "reasonable to the medium" via Planet dumps, the history feature in Potlatch and viewing details for individual objects at /browse/* pages. But this idea that the state of how openstreetmap.org fulfilled parts of the CC-BY-SA at the time of signup somehow modifies what the licensor can expect sounds very dubious. I've never heard something like this argued in any license debate. It would be interesting to see what the Creative Commons lawyers think about this. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
Hi, TimSC wrote: > What is the point in paragraph 4.3, if it can be easily side stepped? I think it is perfectly ok to state things you would like to see even if they can be sidestepped legally. If someone deliberately sidesteps 4.3 by creating an interim version he releases as PD (but never distributes) then he may be in the clear legally but everybody knows there's a bad taste to it. That is enough for me at least! If on the other hand, someone makes something nice from OSM and releases it PD, and someone else then makes something based on that guy's work, do we really want to require the 38th party down the line to still attribute OSM no matter how diluted the OSM content has become? Because that's exactly what an attribution chain does. We have a well working culture of attribution in science, where you usually quote the source you took something from, but not the source behind the source behind the source. > And would the large data set import rights holders be happy if they > found out? Anyone who is not happy with the license need not contribute. (Mind you, we're only talking about the "produced work" line here. We do have cascading attribution requirements for the body of the data.) If one wanted to convince those "large data set import rights holders" (mind you, some in OSM are of the opinion that we'd better not have any imports at all) then one would have to explain to them the following: OSM and ODbL are about data. Data is what we hold dear, data is what we want to have freely available. Data is at the core of what we do. And we take measures to guarantee that freedom of the data, including even a chain of attribution. The "produced work" is, with that data perspective in mind, just a side branch, a by-product, an unimportant dead-end, like compiled code. It is not worthy of our special protection; let people who make produced works do with them whatever they want. In the light of this, yes, it can be said that the attribution requirement for produced works should be dropped altogether; I think it has remained in the license as a symbol. Symbols can be powerful even if legally meaningless. "Look, we want you to attribute us, but we freely chose not to burden you with tons of license code in order to force you to." >> We cannot import such data, even today, because we cannot make sure >> that the attribution is included in all derived works. > That seems a bit of a sweeping statement, as far as I understand? Surely > our CC-BY-SA license is compatible with CC-BY-SA and CC-BY imports, > since the attributions are carried forward? (Although, as Richard > pointed out, this is also quite complicated. Yes. My interpretation is, somewhat contrary to Richard's, that we are in violation of CC-BY-SA and have been from day one, and that thus any import under CC-BY-SA or CC-BY is technically not legal. I agree that if challenged, Richard's "but what we're doing is reasonable for our media" is the best line of defense we can muster. I am not bothered about individual contributions because everyone who contributes *knows* what OSM is like and that he cannot expect to get personal attribution. If someone however has released something under CC-BY-SA without knowing OSM, they have reason to expect that wherever their work is used, they are given credit, and OSM doesn't do that. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
On 19/04/10 20:19, TimSC wrote: > > This issue also applies to OS opendata, as it requires attribution. OS data is CC-BY compatible. They state this explicitly. BY is BY-SA compatible. OSM is currently BY-SA. Allegedly. ;-) > Is > work afoot to get OS to agree to compatibility with ODbL? (Probably in > the LWG?) That's a very good question. It depends on the form of the OS data - if they're giving out maps, which can be copyrighted, then BY is appropriate IMO. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
Frederik Ramm wrote: > > 1) Create a produced work under ODbL term 4.3 with proper attribution > > 2) Release produced work as public domain with proper attribution > > 3) Strip off legal notices and attribution (which I think is > allowed, />/ almost by definition, for public domain works) > > 4) Republish as public domain or any other license, without attribution > > This is allowed. > What is the point in paragraph 4.3, if it can be easily side stepped? And would the large data set import rights holders be happy if they found out? If this paragraph is only for show, I suggest it is removed for brevity and clarity. > Im glad we don't because I consider attribution chains to be evil. > I agree, they are evil. My concern is ODbL wants to have its cake (to have attribution) and to eat it (to allow public domain produced works), which is a contradiction. Since I agree with your interpretation above, I say we drop the attribution requirement completely, for produced works. > > Second issue, which is probably the flip side of the same coin: > people might be inclined to use works that use some sort of > attribution license and incorperate them into OSM (this almost > certainly has already happened, OS opendata, etc). The attribution > must be included in any derived works. > > We cannot import such data, even today, because we cannot make sure > that the attribution is included in all derived works. That seems a bit of a sweeping statement, as far as I understand? Surely our CC-BY-SA license is compatible with CC-BY-SA and CC-BY imports, since the attributions are carried forward? (Although, as Richard pointed out, this is also quite complicated. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-April/005707.html ) This really only becomes an issue if/when ODbL relicensing kicks in, as I understand. This issue also applies to OS opendata, as it requires attribution. Is work afoot to get OS to agree to compatibility with ODbL? (Probably in the LWG?) TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
Hi all, I am back to trying to get my head around ODbL. I am now wondering about attribution and the viral nature of it. Apologies if this has been raised before. Many licenses have a term stating the copyright notice must be preserved (ignoring for a moment that copyright is probably not approprate for databases). Examples include the X11 license and the CC-BY license (term 4b in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). From memory, CC-BY-SA also has this condition, but I am not certain. Ok, so we might create a produced work and release it under the public domain. I could foresee a scenario: 1) Create a produced work under ODbL term 4.3 with proper attribution 2) Release produced work as public domain with proper attribution 3) Strip off legal notices and attribution (which I think is allowed, almost by definition, for public domain works) 4) Republish as public domain or any other license, without attribution My question: where is the term that copyright notices must be preserved done the chain of derived works? ODbL term 4.3 only protects us as far as step 1 in the above example. And if we must insist on attribution being retained, are we saying we can't release ODbL produced works into the public domain? The use case touches on this issue but mainly with respect to trying to reverse engineer the database. I think attribution is a separate issue. The comment in the use case document pretty much implies that this could be an issue. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Using_OSM_data_in_a_raster_map_for_a_book.2C_newsletter.2C_website.2C_blog_or_similar_work Second issue, which is probably the flip side of the same coin: people might be inclined to use works that use some sort of attribution license and incorperate them into OSM (this almost certainly has already happened, OS opendata, etc). The attribution must be included in any derived works. Now this seems incompatible with the contributor terms, which grants OSMF an unlimited license. So, I can't add any "viral attribution" data via the contributor terms, as OSMF might one day try to change its attribution terms, since it is not bound to only use ODbL. It would seem to be that the contributor terms would at least put the viral attribution condition on the OSMF. The worst case scenario is the contributor terms cannot accept any data with an attribution condition. Hopefully that is not the case! Is that interpretation any way valid, interesting, cross eyed? If the answer is already out there, just link to it. Thanks! TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
