Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19 April 2011 20:06, Graham Jones wrote: > Declining the new terms would have been silly because it would have meant my > non-OS based contributions being removed, That would only be the case if/when we proceed to the next stage in the licence change process and you still hadn't accepted the (possibly amended) terms by then. A "decline" choice at the moment can be reversed at any time, and in the mean time you can continue to edit and your previous edits remain in the database. (But I'm not sure if this has now been made clear anywhere on the CTs form -- I only found out when I asked the LWG what would happen if I declined when forced to make a choice.) If you're not certain that you're previous contributions satisfy the CTs, then surely the best course of action is not to sign until such time as you are. If people are signing up with potentially incompatible data just to ensure that their other contributions doesn't get deleted, then that rather defeats the whole point of the strict CTs. The more people that don't sign up yet because of the uncertainties, the more pressure there will be for OSMF to find a solution that allows OS OpenData to be used. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I have also made some contributions based on OS OpenData and have just accepted the new CTs. I am disappointed that it got to the point that we had to accept or decline the new terms before the issue over the OS data has been settled, but reasoned that the vast majority of my contributions have been from surveys and I have put a source tag everywhere that I have used OS data. Declining the new terms would have been silly because it would have meant my non-OS based contributions being removed, and I have nothing against the new licence or contributor terms. If someone decides that OS data is not appropriate they can identify them and remove them. That said I think we would be stupid as an organisation to change our license to one that is not compatible with OS data given that the UK government has released it - I am just not that interested in licences! Graham. On 19 April 2011 17:29, Brian Prangle wrote: > Being cast as the most guilty party "threatening OSM" by having the > greatest number of OS data edits and signing the CTs - I thought I'd > contribute to make it clear where I stand. I'm absolutely with Peter Miller > on this. I trust the OSMF implicitly to get it right which is why I signed > the CTs. Why make the OS data available to us if we can't use it? I'm not > worried in the slightest by this - I'm too busy mapping. All I see these > discussions doing is generating heat but no light > > Regards > > brian > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Being cast as the most guilty party "threatening OSM" by having the greatest number of OS data edits and signing the CTs - I thought I'd contribute to make it clear where I stand. I'm absolutely with Peter Miller on this. I trust the OSMF implicitly to get it right which is why I signed the CTs. Why make the OS data available to us if we can't use it? I'm not worried in the slightest by this - I'm too busy mapping. All I see these discussions doing is generating heat but no light Regards brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19 April 2011 14:14, David Groom wrote: > > > - Original Message - From: "TimSC" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence > > > > >> On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: >>> >>>> I still think that the CTs ask >>>> for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the >>>> Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are >>>> the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that >>>> have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: >>>> >>> >>> Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to >>> solving the problem? >>> >> Determining the scope of the problem is perhaps the first step to solving >> it. And we might want to find out why these users felt the need >> > > In defence of those users, I suspect they did not feel "the need to > (possibly) violate OS OpenData's license", i.e I suspect they did not make > a conscious decision to possibly violate the licence; > > I suspect that either: > > (a) they were unaware there might be a problem, because when you are asked > to agree to sign the CT's there really is no warning to those who have not > followed the licensing debate that some existing sources of data may not be > compatible with the CT's ; > > or (b) they have been persuaded by those on this (and the legal list) who > have argued that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's . > > Ultimately, however, those users motives are not the most relevant issue. > What is more relevant are the as yet unanswered questions: > > (i) is OS OpenData compatible with the CT's; and > > (ii) what will happen to the contributions of users who have breached the > CT's > > David > > > to (possibly) violate OS Opendata's license. User education might be >> something we can work on? >> >> However, does your question go towards solving the problem? Ad hominem tu >> quoque! >> > This is a good question, and a perenial one and not really one that we can resolve as we are not lawyers and are not on the license working group. Some readers may remember that I asked the same question some time back. In the end I got reassurance from the board that it was OK and I signed up. The License team are well aware of the issue and I hope they will ensure that there is not a problem. Personally, I am not going to let it worry me. I expect them to do their job and ensure that it works and I will get on with mapping. Regards, Peter Miller (user:PeterIto) > >> TimSC >> >> >> > > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
- Original Message - From: "TimSC" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to solving the problem? Determining the scope of the problem is perhaps the first step to solving it. And we might want to find out why these users felt the need In defence of those users, I suspect they did not feel "the need to (possibly) violate OS OpenData's license", i.e I suspect they did not make a conscious decision to possibly violate the licence; I suspect that either: (a) they were unaware there might be a problem, because when you are asked to agree to sign the CT's there really is no warning to those who have not followed the licensing debate that some existing sources of data may not be compatible with the CT's ; or (b) they have been persuaded by those on this (and the legal list) who have argued that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's . Ultimately, however, those users motives are not the most relevant issue. What is more relevant are the as yet unanswered questions: (i) is OS OpenData compatible with the CT's; and (ii) what will happen to the contributions of users who have breached the CT's David to (possibly) violate OS Opendata's license. User education might be something we can work on? However, does your question go towards solving the problem? Ad hominem tu quoque! TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18 April 2011 23:21, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Richard Bullock wrote: >> It's on the "Copyright" page though >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright >> "United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and >> database right 2010." >> >> That is, IIRC, what we were required to state. > > Well in that case, as long as nobody is planning to remove that, we should > be fine with CT/ODbL? No. The OS OpenData licence also requires "The same attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licences of the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same." Which I interpret to mean that not only must OSM provide that attribution, we must ensure that all derived works, and any works derived from them must too. In which case, *just* providing attribution on the OSM website isn't, in itself, sufficient. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to solving the problem? Determining the scope of the problem is perhaps the first step to solving it. And we might want to find out why these users felt the need to (possibly) violate OS Opendata's license. User education might be something we can work on? However, does your question go towards solving the problem? Ad hominem tu quoque! TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to solving the problem? Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I have been wondering how much data has been imported into OSM from OS Opendata and who has accepted the CTs. I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: 9065brianboru 41362Eriks Zelenka 69853Central America 51722Chris Parker 57884EdLoach 26825Warofdreams 91225tms13 592JonS 229419piedwagtail91 82783Paul The Archivist The top contributor, brianboru, has 29020 objects that use opendata source tags (and are version 1 objects). We should not focus too much on these specific individuals, as there are probably hundreds of users that have done the same thing. Now, if we were to accept my concern that Opendata and the CTs are incompatible, these users, along with users not listed above, are bringing OSM into disrepute, because they are not respecting other's license terms. The fact that they might plan to remove the data is in a way irrelevant, they should only agree to the CTs after they are in compliance. Here is a link to a random example, from each of the above contributors: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/693084884 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/58688965 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/737268177 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/856782137 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/753395732 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/771249204 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/699639016 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/719665162 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/697029337 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/688497237 The list of people accepting the CTs is here: http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/users_agreed.txt The only solution is to reject their CTs response until their edits are no longer in violation of the Opendata license. Unless I am mistaken in my interpretation of the CTs, in which case this might be a non-issue! Regards, TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, Richard Bullock wrote: It's on the "Copyright" page though http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright "United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010." That is, IIRC, what we were required to state. Well in that case, as long as nobody is planning to remove that, we should be fine with CT/ODbL? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18 April 2011 22:50, Frederik Ramm wrote: > TimSC wrote: >> We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki [1] for CC attribution. >> Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current >> practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over >> the data (in order to grant OSMF that right too). > > I think that's not correct, at least not for the current version of the > contributor terms. "Unlimited rights" is certainly a gross overstatement. > Current CTs only require you to declare that the data you contribute is > compatible with the current license regime? No, Clause 2 of the CTs requires you to grant OSMF "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents..." subject only to some limitations on how OSMF may license the OSM database to others. Those limitations do not include any obligation for OSMF to ensure future licences have an attribution clause, and *that* is the problem I'm trying to highlight -- as it appears to me to prevent the use of any data sources that require some form of viral attribution, and specifically OS OpenData. (Even if you take the view that a link to an OSM "List of Contributors" page satisfies typical attribution requirements (as we currently assume), there is nothing in the CTs to guarantee that future OSM licenses will obligate downstream users to attribute OSM or link back to such a page.) -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. It's on the "Copyright" page though http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright "United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010." That is, IIRC, what we were required to state. And the original OS OpenData license was meant to be explicitly compatible with Creative Commons licences. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Perhaps the best course of action would be for an additional checkbox on the contributor terms page to say 'I have used OS OpenData'. Then people would be able to sign up to support the licence change, if they wish, and it would be up to the legal people at OSMF to decide whether the data from these OS-using accounts is clean, or has to be deleted. But at least then it could be decided once rather than each mapper having to agonize about it. -- Ed Avis ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:42 PM, TimSC wrote: > On 18/04/11 22:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should >> really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every >> downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do >> with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major >> tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source >> and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a >> technique that you seem to discount above. >> >> So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data >> until now has cared sh*t for the license. >> >> Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was >> incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. >> >> What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, >> in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, >> but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has >> been happening. Reality check, anyone? >> >> Bye >> Frederik >> > I actually agree with you Frederik, but the entire project so far overlooks > the even bigger problem that CC-by-SA technically demands that every > contributor is attributed in every derived work. "reasonable to the medium" it says in the license. Not "every contributor". It would clearly be unreasonable to list tens of thousands of people on a paper map, for example. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, TimSC wrote: We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki [1] for CC attribution. Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over the data (in order to grant OSMF that right too). I think that's not correct, at least not for the current version of the contributor terms. "Unlimited rights" is certainly a gross overstatement. Current CTs only require you to declare that the data you contribute is compatible with the current license regime? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/11 22:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has been happening. Reality check, anyone? Bye Frederik I actually agree with you Frederik, but the entire project so far overlooks the even bigger problem that CC-by-SA technically demands that every contributor is attributed in every derived work. Given that we ignore that issue, and that OS Opendata is compatible with CC-by and that is always compatible with CC-by-SA, we have just imported OS data into OSM because the larger attribution issue never was solved. So we are all equally guilty. Now along comes ODbL, which was intended to address shortcomings with CC-by-SA. To say we were in technical violation of CC-by-SA doesn't justify us going along with ODbL if ODbL is flawed. If anything, we should strive to be more legally rigorous, not less. We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki [1] for CC attribution. Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over the data (in order to grant OSMF that right too). Also, just because OS has not complained so far is not a reason to continue to abuse their license. The solution, as far as I can see, is to improve attribution requirements (which would mean rewriting the CTs again) or to remove the data. I know Richard thinks Opendata doesn't pose a problem, so there may be other answers... I call for LWG to get their analysis of the Opendata legal situation done ASAP - that might put minds at rest or allow us to get on with fixing the problem. Regards, TimSC [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, TimSC wrote: Except if someone creates a derivative database based on the main OSM database, and strips out the source tags. Or creates a produced works, which doesn't carry attribution to OSM but not OS. You also violate the CTs. I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has been happening. Reality check, anyone? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/11 21:59, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: If you make sure your OS derived contributions carry the source information then that attribution will be in the OSM db for all to see for ever and a day, regardless of what OSMF does with it in the future under some other free and open format. Except if someone creates a derivative database based on the main OSM database, and strips out the source tags. Or creates a produced works, which doesn't carry attribution to OSM but not OS. You also violate the CTs. Or am I missing something? TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert Whittaker (OSM) [mailto:robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com]wrote >Sent: 18 April 2011 2:13 PM >To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >Subject: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence > >I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've >previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is that >the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with the current >version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4). > >I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I >should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people >signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with >OS OpenData-derived content. My reasoning for the incompatibility is as >follows: > >The OS OpenData License [1] clearly states that any sub-licences must include >a specific attribution requirement, and must also enforce a similar attribution >requirement on any further downstream usage. If you make sure your OS derived contributions carry the source information then that attribution will be in the OSM db for all to see for ever and a day, regardless of what OSMF does with it in the future under some other free and open format. And yes, I have signed up for the CT's and ODbL. I have no qualms at all about that. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Nick Whitelegg wrote: > So I take it that now I've signed I can't contribute any more OS stuff? I believe you can and am continuing to use OpenData as often as I did before (that's "not very often"). Robert believes you can't and has explained why in this thread. > there do seem to be slightly differing opinions on this issue. Indeed. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Contributor-Terms-vs-OS-OpenData-Licence-tp6283585p6284608.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I'd just like some clarification on this. I have contributed a very, very small amount of data via OS OpenData (Haslemere and Andover IIRC but such a small amount that it won't take long to re-survey - feel free to delete any "nickw" edits in those areas with source=OS Open Data) but being such a small amount I *did* accept the CTs. So I take it that now I've signed I can't contribute any more OS stuff? No big deal if so,as almost all my mapping is GPS survey sourced, but would like confirmation that this is indeed the case and there do seem to be slightly differing opinions on this issue. Thanks, Nick -"Robert Whittaker (OSM)" wrote: - To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org From: "Robert Whittaker (OSM)" Date: 18/04/2011 02:14PM Subject: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is that the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with the current version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18 April 2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Robert Whittaker wrote: >> I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because >> I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData > > In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future > non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the > Contributor Terms. > > As an Oxfordshire mapper of many years' standing, I don't want the task of > replacing your edits, post-changeover, to be any harder than it has to be. > Please at least afford this little courtesy to your fellow mappers. Don't worry, I've got no intention of letting my non-OS OpenData edits be deleted from OSM. (And obviously I'd love it if everyone's OS OpenData-derived edits could be kept too. But legally I don't see how this is possible with the current CTs.) My OS OpenData contributions were small in number and were all attributed either in the source tag or in the changeset comments. While I have reservations about the CTs, I'd be happy to sign them for my other edits if/when OSMF figure out a way to separate edits. I'd also be happy to sign if the CTs can be modified to allow OS OpenData, or someone can demonstrate how/why it's ok to contribute OS OpenData under the current CTs. (i.e. if I feel I'm legally able to, I'll sign them -- so please don't blame me for not accepting them at the moment.) LWG are aware of the OS OpenData issue, and I'm sure they'll come up with a suitable way forward in the near future. Until then I'm following the advice I got from an LWG member: "...if one wants to play really safe, decline and wait for developments. Declines are reversible and the matter will need further resolution before we get to the point of preventing such folks from editing." Given the size and number of my non-OS-OpenData contributions, I don't see that there's much point in creating a new account at this stage. Any new edits now would be a small fraction of what I've done previously. And if it turns out OS OpenData isn't allowed at the switch-over, the UK OSM community will have far bigger problems than the loss of my edits. So rather than create a new account, I'm planning to wait to see what OSMF/LWG comes up with in the near future. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Dave F. wrote: > On 18/04/2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future >> non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the >> Contributor Terms. > Did you mean *non*-OS edits? If so could you expand on that please? Yes. Robert has not agreed to the Contributor Terms with his "Robert Whittaker" account. Therefore, when the changeover happens, all these contributions will be wiped. If, however, he creates a new account for non-OS contributions, and assents to the terms for that account, those non-OS contributions can be retained. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Contributor-Terms-vs-OS-OpenData-Licence-tp6283585p6284329.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/2011 15:33, Tom Chance wrote: Robert, On 18 April 2011 14:12, Robert Whittaker wrote: I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. This debate has been trawled over a number of times on this list already. Are you hoping to catch newer subscribers who haven't yet experienced the joy of this debate yet? Indeed it has. However if there's been a conclusive resolution, I've not seen it. If there has been, could you help by referring to it? Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18/04/2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the Contributor Terms. Did you mean *non*-OS edits? If so could you expand on that please? As an Oxfordshire mapper of many years' standing, I don't want the task of replacing your edits, post-changeover, to be any harder than it has to be. Please at least afford this little courtesy to your fellow mappers. I find it ironic it was the dissenter who bemoan about loss of existing data, yet now it's the assenters. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18 April 2011 15:33, Tom Chance wrote: > This debate has been trawled over a number of times on this list already. > Are you hoping to catch newer subscribers who haven't yet experienced the > joy of this debate yet? I'm hoping to catch anyone who might otherwise accidentally sign something they aren't legally free to sign. I am sure that there are many people who will assume that the prevalence of OS OpenData in OSM and its presence in major editors means it is ok for the new CTs, without giving it a second thought. There's been at least one case already on talk@ where someone has signed the CTs and only realised later that some of the sources they'd used meant they weren't legally able to do so. We should be doing everything we can to avoid repeats of this. As a result of previous discussions about the issue of sources, new wording was introduced in CT v 1.2.3 that would have made it ok to sign and having used OS OpenData and other sources. I assumed everything would be fine at this point. Unfortunately, this wording was removed again by LWG for CT version 1.2.4. This subtle change could easily have been missed (it wasn't in the diff for example, since that highlighted the changes between 1.2.4 and a much earlier version). Hence those following previous discussions might be under the (IMO mistaken) impression that it was ok to sign. >> It is regrettable that OSMF is placing the burden of working out >> whether contributed data is compatible with the CTs and licences on >> individual volunteer mappers. > > As you later state, they aren't. They are seeking legal advice to help > contributors. I don't think asking someone to sign a contract, relying on separate legal advice presented by the other party is the same thing at all. It is still up to the individuals to evaluate things themselves. If OSMF wanted to take this burden away from mappers they would provide an explicit list of acceptable licences / sources within the contract itself (or in a normatively linked list). In any case, the legal advice hasn't arrived yet, and we don't know what it will say, but we are still being asked to sign the CTs now. > Perhaps they should specifically warn UK users on the web site > form that seeks agreement with the CTs until this advice comes in? That > might be something to constructively lobby for. I've already suggested to LWG the need for a more general warning about previously-used sources. In response, an LWG member suggested that he could post in talk-gb explaining the current (unresolved) situation with regard to OS OpenData. Unfortunately he didn't post and the mandatory sign-up started. Hence my post here. > I agree that the way the OSMF have gone about this process is regrettable in > a number of respects, but I don't see how stirring this up again helps > anyone. My post was not intended to "stir things up" as you put it, but to remind people to check for themselves whether or not they have legal ability to sign the CTs before doing so. From the numbers of UK mappers accepting the CTs, and the prevalence of OS OpenData in OSM, I would guess that quite a few people have already signed who have made use of OS OpenData. So either they haven't considered the incompatibility or have considered it and decided everything is fine. As far as I can see, it is very clear cut that the two are not compatible. Maybe I've got it wrong -- in which case I'd be grateful if someone could explain why my reasoning is incorrect -- though I've yet to see any convincing arguments for this, either on this list or elsewhere. The purpose of the CTs is to end up with a "clean" set of data in OSM, so allowing people to mistakenly grant OSMF rights they can't legally grant isn't going to help anyone. Hence my desire to ensure that people are adequately informed. I'm sorry if you think this is stirring things up, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert Whittaker wrote: > I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because > I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the Contributor Terms. As an Oxfordshire mapper of many years' standing, I don't want the task of replacing your edits, post-changeover, to be any harder than it has to be. Please at least afford this little courtesy to your fellow mappers. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Contributor-Terms-vs-OS-OpenData-Licence-tp6283585p6284176.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert, On 18 April 2011 14:12, Robert Whittaker wrote: > > I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but > I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in > order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing > the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. > This debate has been trawled over a number of times on this list already. Are you hoping to catch newer subscribers who haven't yet experienced the joy of this debate yet? It is regrettable that OSMF is placing the burden of working out > whether contributed data is compatible with the CTs and licences on > individual volunteer mappers. As you later state, they aren't. They are seeking legal advice to help contributors. Perhaps they should specifically warn UK users on the web site form that seeks agreement with the CTs until this advice comes in? That might be something to constructively lobby for. I agree that the way the OSMF have gone about this process is regrettable in a number of respects, but I don't see how stirring this up again helps anyone. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert Whittaker (OSM writes: > > I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs) I wish to put it on record that I have signed up to the ODBL and CTs. I also wish to put it on record that I have contributed mapping based on OS Opendata both before and after signing up. The OSM Foundation and anyone else who thinks they have standing are welcome to take whatever action they think appropriate. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is that the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with the current version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4). I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. My reasoning for the incompatibility is as follows: The OS OpenData License [1] clearly states that any sub-licences must include a specific attribution requirement, and must also enforce a similar attribution requirement on any further downstream usage. However, clauses 2 and 3 of the OSM Contributor Terms [2] require mappers to grant particular rights to OSMF for future and past contributions. In particular, these rights are sufficient to give OSMF the ability to release contributions under a licence that need not require any attribution (it need only be "free and open"). There is no mention in the CTs of enforcing any attribution requirements in possible future OSM licences. (The facts that a vote of contributors are required for such a change, and that OSMF would clearly do their best to remove any infringing content before re-licensing are immaterial here. The right to distribute the data in the future with no attribution requirement is included in the rights grant required by clause 2, but this is not permitted under the terms of the OS OpenData Licence. There is a requirement in the CTs that OSMF will attribute sources, but no requirement for this to be passed on to downstream users by whatever licence OSM data is released under.) It is regrettable that OSMF is placing the burden of working out whether contributed data is compatible with the CTs and licences on individual volunteer mappers. So it's up to you to make your own decision on whether you're able to make the rights grant specified in CTs Clause 2, for any particular source. When you're reading the new terms and considering what to do, you may or may not come to the same conclusion I have done above with regards OS OpenData... As to where this might leave the use of OS OpenData in OSM if I'm right, I'm not sure. A recent post from an LWG member [3] suggests they'd like mappers to be able to use imports / derived content if they are compatible with the current licence as long as they don't overly burden future licence changes, but haven't figured out a formal mechanism for allowing it yet in the CTs. I think it is most unfortunate that OSMF are pushing ahead with these CT changes without clarity on the status of such imports in general, and OS OpenData-derived content in particular. OSMF/LWG are still waiting for a legal review of the OS OpenData licence and how it interacts with ODbL and the CTs. Nevertheless, it seems clear enough to me that OS OpenData is incompatible with the current CTs for the reasons outlined above. I am also unconvinced that the attribution requirements of the OS OpenData Licence are compatible with those of ODbL and DbCL, though that is debated by others. I think we'll have to wait for the outcome of the legal review, and to see if/how LWG will modify the CTs to allow OS OpenData-derived information to be contributed (if this turns out to be necessary and desirable). Robert. [1] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf [2] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005964.html -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
