Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New OSM contributor licensing under ODbL and CC-BY-SA started today
Mike Collinson m...@... writes: - When enough contributors have agreed, we cut over to licensing the current database under ODbL, (And a static snapshot of the database is also made forever under CC-BY-SA). If for some reason this event never happens, the fail safe is that licensing of all contributions under CC-BY-SA simply continues. Surely this is two separate steps: - begin offering a licence to the whole database under ODbL, - stop offering a licence under CC-BY-SA. They might happen at the same time but they don't have to. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New OSM contributor licensing under ODbL and CC-BY-SA started today
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Mike Collinson m...@... writes: - When enough contributors have agreed, we cut over to licensing the current database under ODbL, (And a static snapshot of the database is also made forever under CC-BY-SA). If for some reason this event never happens, the fail safe is that licensing of all contributions under CC-BY-SA simply continues. Surely this is two separate steps: - begin offering a licence to the whole database under ODbL, - stop offering a licence under CC-BY-SA. They might happen at the same time but they don't have to. I expect that the last ccbysa database will continue to be available as a planet file, just as older ccbysa planet files are available now. I suspect that proceeding with two active databases would be impractical, just as we don't support active editing on the 2006-01-01 planet file version of the database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New OSM contributor licensing under ODbL and CC-BY-SA started today
On 12/05/10 16:23, Jochen Topf wrote: This puts the OSMF in a unique position to undermine the whole project. If somebody subverts the OSMF, he can do whatever he wants with the data. I don't think its a good idea to expose the OSMF to even the possibility of that happening. The whole point of the license is to give *nobody* a way to make the once open data not open anymore. With the IMDB and the CDDB we have two examples where this exact thing went bad. Not somebody coming from the outside taking the data and making it proprietary, but somebody from the inside. Did you read the next paragraph which constrains what they can do with it? Yes, it is a bit weird to say we'll have everything and then in the next paragraph but we'll only do this with it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New OSM contributor licensing under ODbL and CC-BY-SA started today
On 12/05/10 16:23, Jochen Topf wrote: This puts the OSMF in a unique position to undermine the whole project. If somebody subverts the OSMF, he can do whatever he wants with the data. I don't think its a good idea to expose the OSMF to even the possibility of that happening. The whole point of the license is to give *nobody* a way to make the once open data not open anymore. With the IMDB and the CDDB we have two examples where this exact thing went bad. Not somebody coming from the outside taking the data and making it proprietary, but somebody from the inside. This is a bit of fail IMHO. On the most open side of the discussion (mailing lists) it has been pretty clear that nobody really wants that, and also that the license should allow us to import data created by other people under ODbL possibly derived from OSM. Then I think the LWG kind of reviewed this and decided that it wasn't feasible for some reason but never got back to the mailing lists about it, at least that was my impression. Now saying new contributors have to agree to the CC-By-SA and ODbL is a little unprecise. I thought that was the case based on the two mail announcements sent today, but it's the Contributor Terms, not ODbL based on what Avar reports. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New OSM contributor licensing under ODbL and CC-BY-SA started today
At 04:28 PM 12/05/2010, Tom Hughes wrote: On 12/05/10 16:23, Jochen Topf wrote: This puts the OSMF in a unique position to undermine the whole project. If somebody subverts the OSMF, he can do whatever he wants with the data. I don't think its a good idea to expose the OSMF to even the possibility of that happening. The whole point of the license is to give *nobody* a way to make the once open data not open anymore. With the IMDB and the CDDB we have two examples where this exact thing went bad. Not somebody coming from the outside taking the data and making it proprietary, but somebody from the inside. Did you read the next paragraph which constrains what they can do with it? Yes, it is a bit weird to say we'll have everything and then in the next paragraph but we'll only do this with it. Tom If I changed that slightly to we'll have all the bits (Content or each individual node/way) and but we'll only do this with the whole thing (the database) with some room for change in the future within the confines of being free and open, I hope it makes more sense. I've just replied to Jochen with why it is as it is. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New OSM contributor licensing under ODbL and CC-BY-SA started today
At 04:37 PM 12/05/2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Now saying new contributors have to agree to the CC-By-SA and ODbL is a little unprecise. I thought that was the case based on the two mail announcements sent today, but it's the Contributor Terms, not ODbL based on what Avar reports. I may be picking up the wrong concern here, but let me clarify for general information: Having new contributors agree to both the CC-BY-SA and ODbL allows a transition period with fail-safe. - Right now, CC-BY-SA carries on as usual. The Foundation has the right to license a tiny amount of new contributions under ODbL, but will not do so. - Existing contributors are then asked if they will agree to re-license their data under ODbL. CC-BY-SA carries on as usual. - When enough contributors have agreed, we cut over to licensing the current database under ODbL, (And a static snapshot of the database is also made forever under CC-BY-SA). If for some reason this event never happens, the fail safe is that licensing of all contributions under CC-BY-SA simply continues. Hope that helps. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
