Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else. So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal arguments than anyone else? Presumably you ask a plumber to fix your car and a mechanic to prescribe you medicine... Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else. So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal arguments than anyone else? CC-by-SA doesn't work isn't a legal argument. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? See legal-talk ad nauseum. I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work simplification of the argument does not assist anyone. It may not protect data from copying The data is not subject to copyright throughout the entire world. The database can be protected from copying with this new licence. That the data within the database can be protected from copying with the new licence is not proven Whether the majority of contributors, who under the current scheme are the copyright owners of the data, want to protect the data is not proven and whether the majority of contributors want to pass the copyright of that data to OSMF is not proven. I can accept that that OSMF believes that it should replace CC-by-SA because it believes the data has to be protected. Then we have to consider the conflicts of interest which exist on the OSMF Board, and the debate concerning the recent election. Anyone can be a contributor to OSM without hearing of the OSMF for a prolonged period of time. You can't fairly deduce that only 265 people care enough about OSM to join. It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote, and even that vote dumbed down to a single question. Elisabetta the Fair ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else. So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal arguments than anyone else? CC-by-SA doesn't work isn't a legal argument. CC-by-SA doesn't do what SteveC wants it to do, now that might be a legal statement. Of course, it's a legal statement I'd agree with. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Liz wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? See legal-talk ad nauseum. I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work I've not seen anything proving that Elvis is dead. Do you want a mathematical proof or something? I think we're as close as you can possibly get. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch. You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkseuqcACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn32RgCfSHYvAqslXMz79sfj1DbpV2Pw 8iYAnjbgGh6LnolU78pTOQ/+Cma4a5LW =OC0d -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksevF4ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1MwQCfX2V0LyMh3oDAH8KNLXRhPR/G ysAAn0y/IAZo4o7Jqm7DIuUKMBX+N1po =kc1P -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch. You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? From something that doesn't work to something that does work? Why not? No, I'm not advocating it, because I haven't been convinced that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? This is the /only/ way to prove that CC-BY-SA is enough to have your original data protected. If the outcome of such case would be that it was legally sound to do so, you can victoriously claim that what the OSMF was in the best interest of the project. ...but if the case was actually lost. CC-BY-SA would be suitable for OSM, nothing changes and everyone is happy. Now this is the point where the positive people come around again. But the BBC can't use our pretty pictures. Then the SA people should say: we don't care they don't share. Your wish for consensus makes by definition your statement pro the change based on 'CC-BY-SA is not enough' a thing that people like me never buy unless there was a valid example where it actually /wasn't enough/. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksevxgACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn234gCghLGJcgso9/mvnnK4GU+u94Mi BT0AnjIsTR6+Gs00NHAhUqLEKgMoHkJQ =HVqv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? This is the /only/ way to prove that CC-BY-SA is enough to have your original data protected. If the outcome of such case would be that it was legally sound to do so, you can victoriously claim that what the OSMF was in the best interest of the project. Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? What do you mean change the license? Isn't your position that CC-BY-SA is invalid in the first place? The OSMF doesn't need permission to make a contract between itself and users of its websites. At least, not if you think that whole 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. doesn't work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Steve, I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds, let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :) Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in your words, because it is different disscussion and different situation. Otherwise it really sounds like pushing change by someone who are spent too much time in legal-talk. And we know what legal-talk does to the people. Laws aren't physics, get over it. They will never be clean and shut. Cheers and good luck, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Steve, I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds, let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :) Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in your words, because it is different disscussion and different situation. Have you seen this? http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and this? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Stefan, Stefan de Konink wrote: Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. This is factually correct, but would you not expect a degree of friendliness over and above the call of law from those who run the project you contribute to? I don't think that sorry guys, we tricked you into contributing under an invalid license, now all your stuff is basically PD anyway and we're going to relicense it in any way we want is an attitude that would attract anyone to the project! And I don't think you are honestly suggesting that either. 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. Yes, it's all an evil cloudmade plot! As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies so we could do what we like with the data. But that would not equal a sustainable OpenStreetMap. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) Especially related some recent cases over here with the claim This was our intention the intention for OSM is extremely clear. But maybe I can discuss this with a company that might want to try it. Nope not Google. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksewrMACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn11yACgjWzWzqg+d98BBowolLCwQ9f7 hWsAoIpon7KxUpH/cuTdkjQQyKVrntkp =BgE2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. Yes, it's all an evil cloudmade plot! I never said anything about it being evil or a plot. I don't blame you for wanting a license which is best for you. As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies so we could do what we like with the data. Yeah, but it'd be a *lot* better for some of the other companies (like, maybe 10^100) than it would be for CloudMade. Anyway, why would it be better for OSM to move to PD? I thought CC-BY-SA didn't work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/8 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Steve, I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds, let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :) Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in your words, because it is different disscussion and different situation. Have you seen this? http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and this? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes Yours c. Steve So, in nutshell, CC-BY-SA, or even worse, copyright law itself doesn't protect OSM database, because it's database of facts and it doesn't work in lot of juristictions. More or less in those juristictions OSM data are effectively not copyrightable and therefore their usage and distribution can't be controlled by copyright law. p.s. btw, in my country database of facts IS copyrightable and I think it's the same with rest of EU (correct me if I am wrong). So in fact that means no license with basis in copyright term and law can't be used? And therefore you are offering ODbL? ODbL restricts usage trough.? Please explain futher :) p.s. Steve, I am not against Cloudmade or license change, and I understand problem. I just think it is not explained carefully again, again and again. I know, it sucks, but that's the life. And I am worried about mass imports who are done under CC-BY-SA. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Frederik, Frederik Ramm schreef: Stefan de Konink wrote: Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. This is factually correct, but would you not expect a degree of friendliness over and above the call of law from those who run the project you contribute to? If we can get sponsors for servers maybe a sponsoring for a legal case wouldn't be a bad idea at all. If the OSMF could make a clear statement 'if CC-BY-SA holds we are not going to change it', the friendliness is there and it will be in all our best interest. I don't think that sorry guys, we tricked you into contributing under an invalid license, now all your stuff is basically PD anyway and we're going to relicense it in any way we want is an attitude that would attract anyone to the project! Hey SteveC tricked us all in here! Not to blame the rest of the board. ;) And Steve, I am still thankful I ended up in this project when I was Googling other people collecting GPS trails :) And I don't think you are honestly suggesting that either. The point that Steve makes is based on the fact he can't trust the CC-BY-SA anymore for the function he has used it before (mainly no other licenses being available). The only way to prove this would be a case. And don't forget, if a full database dump is made available under CC-BY-SA knowingly it is all PD, wouldn't that be a MUCH worse situation in this respect? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksexI8ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0ZDgCfUL+uJ7xIIsxz8MKIfThP6rxt 8TMAoIB6EHSzIe8ZHMRJGhqNbCxYypJw =SuxJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. this is ridiculous, CM has done so much for osm. If you have a problem with CM name it instead hiding behind a endless license discussion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can? A reasonable argument would go a long way. Much further than out-of-context ambiguous soundbites. Of course, to really be 100% convinced it'd probably take a Supreme Court ruling, and that'd only 100% convince me with respect to the United States. And then, there's the equally ambiguous question of whether or not the ODbL *would* hold. If OSM is considered public domain in the United States, it's fairly unlikely ODbL is going to change that. Of course, I'll be watching the Derrick Coetzee/National Portrait Gallery situation closely to adjust my sense of that one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.comwrote: Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. this is ridiculous, CM has done so much for osm. If you have a problem with CM name it instead hiding behind a endless license discussion. I don't have a problem with CM. I just don't believe for one second that Steve is going to be a proponent of a license change that hurts CM. And I wouldn't expect him to be. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can? A ruling where CC-BY-SA data is being thrown back in to the normal copyright law because the license is void. (Termination clause CC) OSMF vs OSM Contributors sounds totally cool here. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksexa0ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1i5QCdERsafj036Np/UHow7LOM5nJ0 bqUAmgIASemw97qF8jvAge1xMt3fdZyu =x0KW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will, considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia. I also tend to side with Creative Commons. It is not very wise of ODbL proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data. Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a moral crusade opinion. Matt Amos wrote: i have listened to what they have to say, and it makes perfect sense. they recognise that databases like OSM's don't have much basis for protection in copyright law, so they correctly deduce that there are two options: 1) drop requirements enforced by copyright law. this results in a PD-like license, to whit: CC0. 2) enforce requirements by law other than copyright law. this results in a database rights/contract license, to whit: ODbL. creative commons decided, as a policy, that option (1) was preferable, as it places fewer restrictions on the use of the data. however, it drops the share-alike and attribution requirements. they clearly felt that this would provide the best benefit to the scientific community. This as a policy is something that Steve claims as well, implying that rather than working things out, they just decreed something. But I don't think this does them justice Not even if John Wilbanks admitted it? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:03 AM, 80n wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote: Matt Amos schreef: we're talking about moving to another license with very similar requirements, but a different implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would really help me if i could understand your position. Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of all is compatible with everyone. it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under GPL2.0 would lose protection. this is the situation we're in: copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license we're using is based entirely on copyright. also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL. Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target. indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first, then discuss what an even better license might be? Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal? well, such is the nature of legal documents :-( although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code. Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real life. i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the OSMF board ;-) It's shocking that you could even have such a thought. Nevermind the smiley. You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped themselves to our data by now. No, because there is social pressure too. You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please. Absence of evidence... Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. But this is exactly what is objected to! First the LWG 'decides what to do' and then the ordinary contributors are given a stark choice: agree or have your data deleted from OSM. Shouldn't the contributors 'decide what to do' without the 'gun to their head', as Ulf called it? One way to do that would be to have a vote of all contributors, not just OSMF members, and only if that shows clear support for relicensing (defined as 'yes, I think it is a good idea' - not 'yes, I will reluctantly agree to avoid seeing my hard work deleted') move on to the unpleasant but sadly necessary business of getting permission to relicense and deleting data that can't be relicensed. Now, this might be what is planned; there is a lot of confusion on this subject. I know that the final decision on whether to proceed will depend on how many contributors are willing to relicense, though I don't know what exact numbers are being considered. However, if the choice offered is 'say yes or be kicked out' then this is not a fair choice. It would reassure everyone if you and the OSMF could state that there will be a fair consultation or vote of the members, rather than presenting them with a fait accompli from the LWG. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: It is not very wise of ODbL proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data. Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a moral crusade opinion. ...and that is your opinion. But not universally shared. It is usually better to try hard to acknowledge the other side, so I really think you need to be careful about mentioning CC's verdict on CC-BY-SA without also mentioning their view about the ODbL. Even if you think one of the two views is wrongheaded or a 'moral crusade', if you would like to mention Creative Commons to back up an argument against CC-BY-SA, you really have a duty to give both sides. If nothing else, doing so avoids starting yet another side-discussion as people jump in to point out what you deliberately omitted. (As I read the CC people's comments on the ODbL, they genuinely are legal and practical ones, being concerned with legal certainty and with the licence's understandability to non-experts.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote: SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. But this is exactly what is objected to! First the LWG 'decides what to do' I'll stop you right there. They decided with open minutes, phone calls and open calls to be on the working group. How much more open would you like it to be? Just because you disagree with the result doesn't make the process invalid. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi, On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will, considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia. I also tend to side with Creative Commons. It is not very wise of ODbL proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data. Matt Amos wrote: i have listened to what they have to say, and it makes perfect sense. they recognise that databases like OSM's don't have much basis for protection in copyright law, so they correctly deduce that there are two options: 1) drop requirements enforced by copyright law. this results in a PD-like license, to whit: CC0. 2) enforce requirements by law other than copyright law. this results in a database rights/contract license, to whit: ODbL. creative commons decided, as a policy, that option (1) was preferable, as it places fewer restrictions on the use of the data. however, it drops the share-alike and attribution requirements. they clearly felt that this would provide the best benefit to the scientific community. This as a policy is something that Steve claims as well, implying that rather than working things out, they just decreed something. But I don't think this does them justice, and anyone who has followed legal-talk should know. They claim to have invested considerable brainpower in finding a share-alike license (or, at least, an attribution license) for data that works, and failed. One of the big obstacles they saw was endless attribution chains. There was a posting in John Wilbanks' blog about this: http://network.nature.com/people/wilbanks/blog/2007/12/17/open-access-data-boring-but-important Proponents of the ODbL are of the opinion that CC simply were too skeptical, that a license which CC thought wouldn't be good enough is indeed good enough. But that's not a matter of policy, that's a matter of judgment. You an accuse them of bad judgment but you cannot accuse them of blindly choosing a license out of policy. Or if you do, then OSM sticking to share-alike is just the same kind of policy. The best rebuttal of the CC (or Science Commons, to be more precise) position came, like so often, from Richard Fairhurst, here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002317.html In short, he says that Science Commons was thinking too much about research and education, and that thus their results may not necessarily apply to OSM. If your prime example of data is, say, a deciphered human genome, then it is understandable that you'd rather not have endless layers of some kind of viral license slapped onto that. 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote: Matt Amos schreef: we're talking about moving to another license with very similar requirements, but a different implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would really help me if i could understand your position. Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of all is compatible with everyone. it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under GPL2.0 would lose protection. this is the situation we're in: copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license we're using is based entirely on copyright. also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL. Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target. indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first, then discuss what an even better license might be? Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal? well, such is the nature of legal documents :-( although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code. Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real life. i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the OSMF board ;-) It's shocking that you could even have such a thought. Nevermind the smiley. You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped themselves to our data by now. You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please. You'll remember that one of the original reasons a license change was even contemplated was because the license *prevented* people from using the data. In what way can a license that is broken actually do that? Show us the evidence of license abuse please. our choices are basically the following: 1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't work for us. 2) move to a new license. option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think option (1) is what people really want. which do you prefer? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi all, I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me? My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped. The Indonesian islands I traced from aerial imagery. All that and all the data I'm going to add. For free and in my spare time and with the assumptions that I would get credit for it. Not personally but in the form of this dataset was collected by the collaborators of the OSM project. If the copyright law in you're place allows you to take my data and use it with out attributing me and my fellow mappers I consider it broken. And if the copyright law was that broken in the whole world I would never have invested as much time as I have. Nearly all of my data doesn't concern the US and is totally uninteresting to you. Which I consider a good thing. Because I sure as hell don't want to help somebody who has the attitude I can use the data no matter who collected it and how much effort is was. It's just facts. Oh and by the way: I'm not totally convinced that ODbL is great or the right move. I want a open (as in go and do incredible cool stuff with the data I collected), free (as in collecting the data was fun, no need to pay me) license with a attribution clause (forcing you to say btw, the base data was collected by the diligent contributors of OSM). When I joined up, I though that CC-BY-SA did that. Talking to people knowledgeable in matters of law and copyright I learn that this is not the case _in_ _countries_ _like_ _yours_. And as I don't want to hand my data to people with your attitude I see a clear need to relicense, not matter how difficult and painful. Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Anthony, Anthony wrote: I looked at the license and I said Why are they bothering with this crap? It's not like this stuff is copyrightable in the first place. Well, I guess that this stuff is protected by some laws in some jurisdictions, so CC-BY-SA is useful for waiving those rights in those jurisdictions. For me, in a state with sane laws, I don't have to worry about it. What the heck, sure, I'll license my data under CC-BY-SA. Can't hurt. Ah, now I get it. You are a PD advocate by heart like myself, and you were actually *happy* with the non-working CC-BY-SA. Or put it this way, for you the major point of CC-BY-SA was the you are granted the following rights... bit (which wasn't required for your jurisdiction but might have been in others), and you sort of ignored the under the following conditions... bit. It's nice to see that point of view, given that some people endlessly drone on about how there was a consensus in OSM to have a share-alike license; now there's you having consented to CC-BY-SA but only because you knew it wasn't binding for you anyway. Sweet! I am also pro-PD but I am based in Europe where it is less clear which aspects of CC-BY-SA work and which don't; for me, ODbL at least brings more safety and clarity about what is allowed and what isn't, so I will support it. If I were in the States where it seems blatantly obvious that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect our data, and thus ODbL only adds restrictions, I might think differently. However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has different effects in different countries. This has the potential to disrupt community efforts - a US-based project using OSM data but people from Europe cannot participate for fear of prosecution in their countries. Or, you are a US company and create an OSM based product but cannot sell to Europe because your customers fear legal trouble. ODbL doesn't completely harmonise jurisdictions but it goes a long way there, and I find this desirable. Another thing is of course the moral component. The non-working CC-BY-SA in your country might let you get away with taking OSM data, printing a map from it and claiming full copyright on that. But even if legally non-working, the community still expects you to adhere to the share-alike terms of the license, and will scorn you for that activity. Whereas with ODbL, this is perfectly allowed, and will be accepted by the community. 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC wrote: Oh we have those people though, matt is calm, rational and diligently replying to the concerns. Note its mostly misunderstood or ignored by people like 80n. That frees me to lose my temper with the passive aggressive lot who just want to screw everything up and can't work as a team. Just to stick my oar in I think part of the problem here is that the 'license' problem DOES go back several years, and I have many emails about it. BECAUSE it had moved from the 'front line' while all the facts were gathered, newcomers would not have been aware of the REAL problem, which is that courts were separating 'data' from 'documents' and allowing commercial organizations free use of the underlying data simply because it was not a breach of copyright. There are a couple of commercial organization in the US using freely gathered data for their own purposes without putting anything back into the project that generated it - the courts have found they are not in breach of copyright! The bottom line is that courts all over the world will make up their own mind on how THEY think licenses are interpreted and because there is not a single 'jurisdiction' ANYTHING we draft will be ignored somewhere in the world! I probably do not support the current offering, but that is more because I see it as restrictive and I would prefer free access. HOWEVER it HAS to be restrictive otherwise any commercial organization can walk over it. If we could get a world wide agreement then there would not be a problem, but TODAY I see many government sources fully supporting the SPIRIT if OSM and providing data to be included. We DO need to protect the use of that data - something which 'copyright' simply does not do - and is an area where there is NO case law to fall back on? SO we need something which can then become acceptable case law? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
At 10:26 PM 5/12/2009, Ian Dees wrote: On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this site. If you have not received an email, first please check your spam folder then, if it still cannot be found, contact the OSMF membership secretary: membership at osmfoundation dot org. If you are not an OSMF member, you can read the final version of our formal proposal at: Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o the OSMF can not vote on the license decision? If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote? Ian, A little at a time. This is a key test for change after all the community-wide input and consultation over the last two years. If it gets through here, then all contributors will be asked for their consent. Some OSMF members also question this strategy, and that would be a reason for them to vote no: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Who_owns_OSM.3F_You.21 Mike License Working Group ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
At 01:58 AM 6/12/2009, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk: The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to be done. How many of them are practising copyright lawyers? None. Which is why we elected to work with Open Data Commons. The ODbL 1.0 license itself is theirs, not ours. Our relationship with them has worked very well. We have provided our special, but often generalisable, requirements for geodata and they have provided the big picture and, of course, specific legal discipline. Their general jurisdictional background is UK and Europe: http://www.opendatacommons.org/about/advisory-council/ . The OSMF also directly engaged legal counsel specifically for OpenStreetMap; Clark Asay of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, http://www.wsgr.com . They generously provided hours pro bono and we burned through quite a few. Clark has been both enthusiastic and diligent. We asked him to review both ODbL and give input to our Contributor Terms as well as presented many specific concerns raised by us and the OpenStreetMap community. Based in Silicon Valley also gave us the advantage of a US jurisdictional perspective and in the heart of technical intellectual property land. Hope that helps, Mike Collinson OSMF License Working Group ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
80n wrote: You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped themselves to our data by now. You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please. Ok. Assiduous readers of legal-talk will know about the machine-generated derivative loophole which Frederik and I independently identified; which has been confirmed for us on the CC mailing lists; and which CC will not fix because they don't believe people should use a creative works licence for data. Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you distribute OSM data, or a derivative of it. They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces the word node with nude throughout, I don't have to give it back or attribute OSM. In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly permissible under CC-BY-SA. This is trivial because you can distribute programs as part of a webpage - for example, as JavaScript (e.g. Cartagen) or Flash (e.g. Halcyon). To this end, because you would like to see some evidence of the data being 'abused', I've temporarily removed the attribution from http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ . This is now using OSM data without any credit, perfectly legally. I also give notice that I intend to write an iPhone application which uses the same loophole to download OSM data, creates a derivative, and neither attributes OSM nor offers the derivative under the terms of CC-BY-SA. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26665018.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped themselves to our data by now. You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please. Ok. Assiduous readers of legal-talk will know about the machine-generated derivative loophole which Frederik and I independently identified; which has been confirmed for us on the CC mailing lists; and which CC will not fix because they don't believe people should use a creative works licence for data. Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you distribute OSM data, or a derivative of it. They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces the word node with nude throughout, I don't have to give it back or attribute OSM. In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly permissible under CC-BY-SA. This is trivial because you can distribute programs as part of a webpage - for example, as JavaScript (e.g. Cartagen) or Flash (e.g. Halcyon). To this end, because you would like to see some evidence of the data being 'abused', I've temporarily removed the attribution from http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ . This is now using OSM data without any credit, perfectly legally. This is a nice demonstration of a flaw in CC BY-SA. So apart from you making this site in order to demonstrate the flaw, can you point to anyone who is actually really using this loophole? The fact is that given a reasonable license most people respect the spirit of it. And the ODbL fixes this by making it permissible to do what you've just done, right? Do you have any real world examples that you can share? I also give notice that I intend to write an iPhone application which uses the same loophole to download OSM data, creates a derivative, and neither attributes OSM nor offers the derivative under the terms of CC-BY-SA. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26665018.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has different effects in different countries. And that is one of the exact problems with the ODbL. Under the ODbL, in some jurisdictions the database is protected by database, copyright, and contract law. In other jurisdictions, it's protected only by contract law. In the United States, which is a prominent example of anything goes, the ODbL would likely not hold up in a court of law anyway. First of all, unless there's some sort of click-through, there's no real indication of assent. Even if you want to argue that the TOS is binding (and that's probably going to be an expensive argument), it's only binding if the site you download the data from has the TOS. Then, once you prove that there's a contract in place, it's effectively useless. You can't sue for injunctive relief, that's just not a remedy available for breach of contract. You could try to sue for specific performance, but it's highly unlikely you'd get it. So you're left with a suit under a state law breach of contract and you get actual damages, likely nothing. OSM absolutely *should* be released under a license which is treated as similarly as possible in all jurisdictions. That license is CC0. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote: Hi all, I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me? My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped. The Indonesian islands I traced from aerial imagery. All that and all the data I'm going to add. For free and in my spare time and with the assumptions that I would get credit for it. Not personally but in the form of this dataset was collected by the collaborators of the OSM project. Well, first of all, that's not your data. That's data, which you happened to discover. Just because you discovered something doesn't mean you own it. Secondly, Nearly all of my data doesn't concern the US and is totally uninteresting to you. So I ask again, what's in it for me? If the copyright law in you're place allows you to take my data and use it with out attributing me and my fellow mappers I consider it broken. And if the copyright law was that broken in the whole world I would never have invested as much time as I have. And I say the opposite. If the copyright law was so broken that one had to keep a chain of attribution every time one learned of a fact, I would have never been interested in OSM in the first place. But attribution, collectively, to OSM, isn't really my problem. If it was as simple as writing some data from OSM next to any map I created, I'd be perfectly fine with it. One big problem, and the biggest change I can find from CC-BY-SA, is 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. Sure, some will claim that it's a feature that I can't print out maps which mix OSM data and non-OSM data without offer[ing] to recipients of the [...] Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of [...] A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs along with my business cards. The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means. And Open Data Commons is just not anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone I've heard of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please. Show us the evidence of license abuse please. http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24536.html cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Shalabh wrote: Steve, I have to agree with John. Fence sitter or not, Ulf has raised a point which has not been answered till now. More importantly, mappers like me who contribute everyday and are not part of OSMF have no clue about what this is. Now that this discussion is so openly in the talk forum, I think an answer is in order. One liner jibes aimed at Ulf and Frederick are not helping things. Just pointing us to the Wiki page may not be enough because most people (like me) wont understand complicated copyright laws and will make neither head nor tail of a technical discussion. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me? My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped. The Indonesian islands I traced from aerial imagery. All that and all the data I'm going to add. For free and in my spare time and with the assumptions that I would get credit for it. Not personally but in the form of this dataset was collected by the collaborators of the OSM project. Well, first of all, that's not your data. That's data, which you happened to discover. Just because you discovered something doesn't mean you own it. Sure it is. If I learn something, I own my knowledge and my description of it. I don't own the street or might not be able to distribute my knowledge if my source is there are restrictions on my source. And sure enough somebody else could have come up with his or her own valid description of the real world which they would own. But they didn't. So it's MY DATA. (And I don't take it kindly if somebody tries to take it away from me.) Secondly, Nearly all of my data doesn't concern the US and is totally uninteresting to you. So I ask again, what's in it for me? The mappers in the US who feel like me but haven't spoken up (yet). If the copyright law in you're place allows you to take my data and use it with out attributing me and my fellow mappers I consider it broken. And if the copyright law was that broken in the whole world I would never have invested as much time as I have. And I say the opposite. If the copyright law was so broken that one had to keep a chain of attribution every time one learned of a fact, I would have never been interested in OSM in the first place. So we map for different reason, fine. But that doesn't give you the right to circumvent the license terms on MY DATA. And to stop you from doing that I want to switch away from the broken CC-BY-SA license. One big problem, and the biggest change I can find from CC-BY-SA, is 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. Sure, some will claim that it's a feature that I can't print out maps which mix OSM data and non-OSM data without offer[ing] to recipients of the [...] Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of [...] A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. Why? Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs along with my business cards. You don't have to. But if I ask how you created your nice business cards I would really appreciate a short answer in the form of I used software $foo and elevation data from source $bar to generate the hillshading. The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means. And Open Data Commons is just not anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone I've heard of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL). For somebody without time or knowledge you sure are very loud And Creative Commons didn't tear OBbL but said CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to data just use CC0 and you are fine. Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
It is clear that we all have different opinions about this license change. However, I would like to hear down-to-earth explaining what and how will happen when license change kicks in? How OSMF will work with contributors to get their data converted? How they will try to convince them? etc. If it will be just deletion, then OSMF heads for sea of trouble and confusion here. Please guys, be more polite and understanding about criticism and opposition this license change gets. So far miscomunication and lack of real life info about this outweights any useful data so it is quite understandable why there is so much strong language in this thread. Please work together on this, Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi, Anthony wrote: Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs along with my business cards. I think you are only required to hand out the database on which your rendering is based. And it doesn't even have to be the database at the time; you can hand out a current version. And you don't even have to hand it out fully, it is enough to hand out a diff to the original data if that is still available. So if you took OSM data and didn't change it (which I think is likely), then your diff is empty, and all you have to do is point people to planet.openstreetmap.org if anyone should ever ask you for the data. The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means. And Open Data Commons is just not anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone I've heard of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL). I wouldn't exactly say torn apart. In fact, one of the biggest problem that they had with ODbL was that Open Data Commons offered this license as a general share-alike license suitable for data, and by doing so was challenging the Creative Commons quasi-hegemony in the department of open licensing. In this message: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002315.html John Wilbanks of Science Commons writes, If this were the Open Street Map License and not the Open Database License it's unlikely we would have such a strong opinion. And in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002318.html the same guy says: Your community cares more about reciprocity than interoperability. That's fine and dandy for you. But you're proposing to promote your solution, a complex one engineered and tuned for you, as something that is a generic solution *without doing the research* as to how it will work in generic situations. That's not fine and dandy. I think he's perfectly right; ODbL was very much influenced by OSM, much as any product will be influenced by the first large user. But again, they didn't really tear apart ODbL, they were just unhappy about the prospect of more people in science and education using this license because that would reduce interoperability. Which is undoubtedly true; no share-alike license can ever be as interoperable as CC0 or PD. 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anthony wrote: Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs along with my business cards. I think you are only required to hand out the database on which your rendering is based. And it doesn't even have to be the database at the time; you can hand out a current version. And you don't even have to hand it out fully, it is enough to hand out a diff to the original data if that is still available. So if you took OSM data and didn't change it (which I think is likely), then your diff is empty, and all you have to do is point people to planet.openstreetmap.org if anyone should ever ask you for the data. And if I did change it (I plan to - there are some features I want to show which aren't supported by OSM tags)? I guess I could get away with hosting a website which contains the data, and printing the url of that website. But even that is too much of a pain. The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means. And Open Data Commons is just not anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone I've heard of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL). I wouldn't exactly say torn apart. I would, and I did. The ODbL Fails to Promote Legal Predictability and Certainty Over Use of Databases The ODbL Is Complex and Difficult for Non-Lawyers to Understand and Apply Now you're saying I should ignore that, and just sign away. Maybe I would if I thought I could derive some significant benefit from it. But if the only benefit is that I get the privilege of contributing to OSM, no thanks. I'll take my mapping elsewhere. I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly permissible under CC-BY-SA. And is perfectly permissible under ODbL. This License does not apply to computer programs used in the making or operation of the Database I'd like a response to this. And I'd also like a response to my question about what license is going to be used for the Contents. Is it the Database Contents License? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC wrote: No there's an entire other list for it... But the LWG has tried hard to keep the other lists up to date. The evidence with the number of posts here suggests that it didn't work. This situation reminds me of the location of the planning application in the opening chapters of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And some of your replies that come across as a spoilt child certainly don't help clarify the situation. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL. Make that a button, and allow me to click on it without agreeing to a TOS, and I'll even do that. 1) Agree 2) Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD 3) Refuse 4) Refuse; and declare that I consider all my data PD ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote: I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL. Make that a button, and allow me to click on it without agreeing to a TOS, and I'll even do that. 1) Agree 2) Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD 3) Refuse 4) Refuse; and declare that I consider all my data PD But by hitting Agree you don't agree to ODbL - you just agree that OSMF distribute your data under ODbL. So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree options? 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org mailto: o...@inbox.org wrote: I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL. Make that a button, and allow me to click on it without agreeing to a TOS, and I'll even do that. 1) Agree 2) Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD 3) Refuse 4) Refuse; and declare that I consider all my data PD But by hitting Agree you don't agree to ODbL - you just agree that OSMF distribute your data under ODbL. So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree options? I don't know. I've asked the legal list for the answer to this, and I only got one response, which I found unclear. My understanding is that by using this site you agree to the ODbL will be part of the terms of service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject* the contributor terms without agreeing to the ODbL. According to the new terms of service, if I don't agree to the ODbL, I can't access the site at all, right? I assume a court will be okay with me accessing the site once, to read the terms of service, though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree options? By the way, I should clarify, I certainly don't plan to stop using the OSM data from up until the point where the CC-BY-SA only data is removed. Hopefully someone will have successfully forked this data by then. If this ever happens. I'm kind of skeptical that the OSMF is going to go through with it after they see how many people don't respond. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: My understanding is that by using this site you agree to the ODbL will be part of the terms of service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject* the contributor terms without agreeing to the ODbL. Hmm, thinking about this more, that wouldn't work. The TOS can't be updated until the CC-BY-SA data is removed. 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. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi, Anthony wrote: I don't know. I've asked the legal list for the answer to this, and I only got one response, which I found unclear. My understanding is that by using this site you agree to the ODbL will be part of the terms of service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject* the contributor terms without agreeing to the ODbL. As you corretly point out in your later e-mail, these things will be sequenced. Also, I don't think it is in anybody's intention to put anything else than OSM data under the ODbL. So it should really not read by using this site... but instead by using OSM data from this site... or so. 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Also, I don't think it is in anybody's intention to put anything else than OSM data under the ODbL. So it should really not read by using this site... but instead by using OSM data from this site... or so. A specious claim, in any case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflictsfor what happens when organizations try to enforce restrictions on uncopyrightable works through a terms of service. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this site. If you have not received an email, first please check your spam folder then, if it still cannot be found, contact the OSMF membership secretary: membership at osmfoundation dot org. If you are not an OSMF member, you can read the final version of our formal proposal at: Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o the OSMF can not vote on the license decision? If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this site. If you have not received an email, first please check your spam folder then, if it still cannot be found, contact the OSMF membership secretary: membership at osmfoundation dot org. If you are not an OSMF member, you can read the final version of our formal proposal at: Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o the OSMF can not vote on the license decision? If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote? If a non-OSMF member rejects the Contributor Terms, all their contributions get removed from the new database. That's pretty good representation! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote: Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o the OSMF can not vote on the license decision? If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote? If a non-OSMF member rejects the Contributor Terms, all their contributions get removed from the new database. That's pretty good representation! quote An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid) as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for voting. /quote 265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative. Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people to be accepted as valid. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote: quote An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid) as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for voting. /quote 265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative. Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people to be accepted as valid. Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Tom Hughes schrieb: On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote: quote An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid) as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for voting. /quote 265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative. Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people to be accepted as valid. Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote: Tom Hughes schrieb: Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. My understanding is that after all contributors have been invited to agree to relicensing the board will make a decision about whether to go ahead which will obviously have to take into account the proportion of contributors who have agreed to relicense. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote: quote An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid) as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for voting. /quote 265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative. Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people to be accepted as valid. Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. Why not start with that step? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: Tom Hughes schrieb: Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. I'd say it isn't a vote, it's asking whether you agree to relicense your contributions under the ODbL subject to the Contributor Terms. I would imagine there are quite a few people who couldn't legitimately agree to that, even if they want the ODbL. Have you ever important any CC-BY(-SA) data using your account? If so, they I would think that you can't legally agree because you are not the copyright holder of all your contributions. For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future relicensing. Does that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Tom Hughes schrieb: On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote: Tom Hughes schrieb: Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. My understanding is that after all contributors have been invited to agree to relicensing the board will make a decision about whether to go ahead which will obviously have to take into account the proportion of contributors who have agreed to relicense. So translated: If you do not agree to what the OSMF wants, the OSMF will remove the data that you have collected over the last years. Maybe there are too many not willing to change, then we have to talk again. Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with an open community? Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
James Livingston schrieb: On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. I'd say it isn't a vote, it's asking whether you agree to relicense your contributions under the ODbL subject to the Contributor Terms. I would imagine there are quite a few people who couldn't legitimately agree to that, even if they want the ODbL. Have you ever important any CC-BY(-SA) data using your account? If so, they I would think that you can't legally agree because you are not the copyright holder of all your contributions. For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future relicensing. Does that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably. Even worse, how do you know if stuff you've entered to OSM which is based on your own *and* other OSM mappers (CC-by-SA) work doesn't count as a derivative work? Potentially, you would relicense stuff to the ODBL derived from existing CC-by-SA OSM data - which would be an illegal copyright infringement. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 James Livingston schreef: For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future relicensing. Does that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably. Thanks for setting this example. You can extend it to any data from Wikipedia. And most government related imports from The Netherlands. I have pointed this out on the talk-nl list as well. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksa8F0ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0SJwCfR//f6eebGmWRR3z9uHzNjnaX 5MEAn2QLuznZPfrN9LaChMLx89YsUwQx =dd/X -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi, James Livingston wrote: For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future relicensing. Does that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably. Are we sure that CC-BY is any more incompatible with ODbL that what we're doing now? I mean, nominally we have CC-BY-SA but data.australia.gov.au is not listed on the maps anywhere... If CC-BY were really unusable for us then my completely unoffical take on this would be: If you have only inferred a very small number of elements then just ignore it and say yes. If we're talking about a lot of data, and if you have put proper source tags in or tagged your changesets in a way that makes them discernible, then we can find a way to open a new account and transfer this tainted data to the new account and you then accept the relicensing with your old account. Lawyers might scorn me for this but I think it is ok to do this on a best effort basis, i.e. if we should miss one data item or another during such a process then we're not going to be sued to death because of that. 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Ulf Lamping wrote: div class=moz-text-flowed style=font-family: -moz-fixedTom Hughes schrieb: On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote: Tom Hughes schrieb: Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. My understanding is that after all contributors have been invited to agree to relicensing the board will make a decision about whether to go ahead which will obviously have to take into account the proportion of contributors who have agreed to relicense. So translated: If you do not agree to what the OSMF wants, the OSMF will remove the data that you have collected over the last years. Maybe there are too many not willing to change, then we have to talk again. No, I don't think that is a fair representation. Yes, the motion that will be proposed is Do you agree to relicense to ODbL under the contributor terms, but to say you have no power in this vote is incorrect. In fact you have way more influence than in any normal vote, as the vote has to be close to unanimous as otherwise there will be far to much data loss as that the change will go ahead. Please trust the OSMF board that they have the best intent for the OSM data and will I am sure thus not allow that anywhere close to half of the data will get deleted. So the power of the no sayers is way bigger than in any normal vote! This initial vote of the OSMF is as I would see it an initial straw pole to see if in at least this group of OSMers we can get sufficient support to make it work before asking ten thousands of people if they would agree to a license change. After that is still the real vote for or against going ODbL. This is the same as in any other process, where a few dedicated and very capable people spend years of hard work trying to find the best compromise with everyone else being able to give input and feedback through out the whole process which is taken into consideration. At the end of this process there is a vote, do you agree or not. This seems like the most reasonable process and the only one that has a chance to get any decision made in a 100 thousand strong community with very diverse interests. Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with an open community? No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much more open do you want it to be with out spamming 15 people who are mostly not interested in the process of the license on every little detail? Regards, ULFL Kai /div ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Kai Krueger schrieb: Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with an open community? No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much more open do you want it to be with out spamming 15 people who are mostly not interested in the process of the license on every little detail? I find it completely inappropriate to ask the fellow mappers out there: Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data in february This requires a very strong opinion against the license to build the believe: I don't want the new license, so I'm willing to loose the last years of my work with OSM. You may be right that the no sayers have more weight in the process, but becoming a no sayer requires a very strong believe as you potentially loose all your previous work. What I would have expected would be a simple web poll with a few options to get a first idea what the mappers out there really want. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to be done. Shaun On 6 Dec 2009, at 00:37, Ulf Lamping wrote: Kai Krueger schrieb: Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with an open community? No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much more open do you want it to be with out spamming 15 people who are mostly not interested in the process of the license on every little detail? I find it completely inappropriate to ask the fellow mappers out there: Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data in february This requires a very strong opinion against the license to build the believe: I don't want the new license, so I'm willing to loose the last years of my work with OSM. You may be right that the no sayers have more weight in the process, but becoming a no sayer requires a very strong believe as you potentially loose all your previous work. What I would have expected would be a simple web poll with a few options to get a first idea what the mappers out there really want. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: 2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk: The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to be done. How many of them are practising copyright lawyers? And of those, how diverse is the legal jurisdicitions they cover? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
John Smith wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them just get on with it. How many of them are practising copyright lawyers? ODbL was drawn up by Jordan Hatcher, who is a copyright lawyer from Texas, in conjunction with Charlotte Waelde, who is an copyright lawyer from Edinburgh. Jordan has been working with the LWG to reflect OSM mappers' concerns, but over and above that, LWG has also engaged Clark Asay, who is a copyright lawyer from California, to review the licence. The ODbL is overseen by a board which, as well as Jordan, Charlotte and Clark, also includes Lucie Guibault, a professor of copyright from the Netherlands, and Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in E-Commerce Law and consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organisation. So I think the answer is: five. Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They have said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it. If you can cite some practising copyright lawyers who think we should continue to use CC-BY-SA, I'm sure we'd be interested to see their opinion. Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26661192.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC schrieb: On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. Ulf! Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline your alternative suggestion? For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be fun! Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it! So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the mappers head - to keep the picture. Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most - the mappers? Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They have said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it. There has also been a lot of data imported from Government sources that released data as CC-BY-SA and I'm sure they have lawyers too. If you can cite some practising copyright lawyers who think we should continue to use CC-BY-SA, I'm sure we'd be interested to see their opinion. I'm trying to form an informed opinion on this topic instead of simple appeals to authority and other logical falicises to push an idea. A lot of data, as James wrote, in Australia is tainted by CC-BY-SA that has been released by other copyright holders and we, the Australian OSM users, don't have authority to simply change the license and a lot of us are expressing concerns that the work we have put in to adding, modifying and so on will have all been for nothing if threats to remove CC-BY-SA data goes ahead. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: The ODbL is overseen by a board which, as well as Jordan, Charlotte and Clark, also includes Lucie Guibault, a professor of copyright from the Netherlands, and Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in E-Commerce Law and consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Do you have any evidence that these latter two have actually read the license? Because if not then it might be questionable to list them here, whereas if yes, I'd love to hear what they had to say. There have been some independent reviews of ODbL. One relatively positive review by Axel Metzger, a German Law Professor, which I have partly translated here: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html There has been a slightly more critical review of an earlier version of the license by a lawyer contracted by ITO: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot say whether it's good or bad: http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10 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-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. Why not start with that step? No sense in wasting everyone's time if the OSMF members aren't going to agree to it anyway? On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.comwrote: So translated: If you do not agree to what the OSMF wants, the OSMF will remove the data that you have collected over the last years. It'll still be there. In perfect form for the fork which will inevitably arise. On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They have said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it. It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be copyrighted. Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go *beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA (which you are deemed to have accepted simply by visiting the OSM website. That's the part that worries me, and which I suppose will cause me to stop contributing (I haven't completely decided yet, though). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Shaun McDonald schrieb: The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to be done. That probably reflects the problem best. I do *not* know the people from the License Working Group (as I guess most mappers won't do) - therefore I have no reasons to trust them or not. I do *not* see it as my personal duty to build trust in a license change that some people (I do not know) are trying to do. I can't see (by far) *any* more important thing in OSM than what will happen to my data in the future. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: There have been some independent reviews of ODbL. snip There is also Andrea Rossato who the Italian OSM community hired independently to review the license. I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems. Could someone from the Italian community confirm? Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org: No sense in wasting everyone's time if the OSMF members aren't going to agree to it anyway? I'm pretty sure he meant asking contributors before threatening to remove their contributions. It'll still be there. In perfect form for the fork which will inevitably arise. Which will be a real shame, this is where Google will really get it's claws in because people will be able to map without worrying about data disappearing. It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be copyrighted. Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go *beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA (which you are deemed to have accepted simply by visiting the OSM website. That's the part that worries me, and which I suppose will cause me to stop contributing (I haven't completely decided yet, though). Click through type agreements have already been deemed as unenforceable, so I fail to see how agreeing to this by visiting a site would be more enforceable? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: SteveC schrieb: On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. Ulf! Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline your alternative suggestion? For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be fun! Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it! So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the mappers head - to keep the picture. Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most - the mappers? Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of consultations? Yours c. Steve Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com: Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of consultations? How is insulting people going to help things? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sunday 06 December 2009 02:25:16 Frederik Ramm wrote: And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot say whether it's good or bad: http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabank licentie-versie-10 Basically he is saying that he thinks that in the Netherlands the copyright part won't work, the browse-wrap (contract) part might not always work and the database protection part definitely works. So the end result is, that ODbL can be used to protect OSM in the Netherlands (in his opinion). -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Frederik Ramm schreef: And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot say whether it's good or bad: http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10 I can... before Arnoud already pointed out that factual information doesn't contain any copyright. Only the stylesheet that create a map is the creative work, that might include the software to do so. What he points out is that in a legal case in NL between an ISP and a spam-company that the owner, here the ISP, has a contractual right to limit the usage of the resources. Now the ODbL licence is actually targeting a third person. So not the publisher (OSM), not the user (2nd party) but the visitor of the user. And he claims this can be a very interesting case... because the 2nd party might actually have accepted the ODbL, but his visitor did not, can a visitor therefore be held to the ODbL contract... Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksbDtQACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1grQCfUei564SVD8GtPlIDSo4BrjJe mP0AmgPdHoLcQWNQO5sgESAkY65G0TJF =Rdem -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC schrieb: On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: SteveC schrieb: On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. Ulf! Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline your alternative suggestion? For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be fun! Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it! So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the mappers head - to keep the picture. Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most - the mappers? Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of consultations? Yes, that's you're personal way of dealing with opinions that you don't like. The next stage will be that you claim that you are evil. We all know that. But how does that respond in any way to the suggestion I've made? do we already have numbers about mappers that are in need of a better license, can accept a PD license, will never want to change the license, ... To the best of my knowledge ... no! Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org: It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be copyrighted. Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go *beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA (which you are deemed to have accepted simply by visiting the OSM website. That's the part that worries me, and which I suppose will cause me to stop contributing (I haven't completely decided yet, though). Click through type agreements have already been deemed as unenforceable, Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the legal list if you think it's too off-topic)? To my knowledge the enforceability is spotty and unclear. so I fail to see how agreeing to this by visiting a site would be more enforceable? I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not. And I've asked on the legal list (so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor Terms requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond copyright law (which, here in Florida, is not very far). I'd be willing to release my contributions into the public domain. But I won't agree to further restrictions on the OSM database which go beyond copyright law. Someone else pointed out that that's what Google does. Yeah, I thought OSM was supposed to be better than that. In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms outlined. Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Yours c. Steve On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com: Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of consultations? How is insulting people going to help things? By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Yours c. Steve On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:55, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: SteveC schrieb: On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: SteveC schrieb: On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. Ulf! Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline your alternative suggestion? For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be fun! Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it! So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the mappers head - to keep the picture. Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most - the mappers? Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of consultations? Yes, that's you're personal way of dealing with opinions that you don't like. Not ones I don't like, ones full of BS because you don't want to work within a process and just sit about here at the last minute and moan. It's a serious point - where have you been the past year? Why the sudden intrest? The next stage will be that you claim that you are evil. We all know that. But how does that respond in any way to the suggestion I've made? do we already have numbers about mappers that are in need of a better license, can accept a PD license, will never want to change the license, ... To the best of my knowledge ... no! Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com: By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down. And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are being and not helping fence sitters one bit. If you want a dictatorship on the matter say so, otherwise you or others wanting the change need to address the critics in a reasonable and rational manner, otherwise no one will see a point in the change other than because you said it should happen otherwise you'll attack them in which case the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Click through type agreements have already been deemed as unenforceable, Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the legal list if you think it's too off-topic)? To my knowledge the enforceability is spotty and unclear. Trying to find the judgement, was a few years ago now. In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms outlined. Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete. What about people unable to change the terms of their contributions due to being contributed by governments? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
... I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems. Easy example: With CC-BY-SA this tile http://c.tile.cloudmade.com/BC9A493B41014CAABB98F0471D759707/1/256/5/16/10.png?1253694005 is also CC-BY-SA. With ODBL the tile could have a different license including a cloudmade copyright. For me the ODBL is more like CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA. I have no problem with that, but it is a big change. Bernhard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com: By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down. And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are being and not helping fence sitters one bit. Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners dilemma. If you want a dictatorship on the matter say so, otherwise you or others wanting the change need to address the critics in a reasonable and rational manner, otherwise no one will see a point in the change other than because you said it should happen otherwise you'll attack them in which case the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com: Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners dilemma. That's just it, I'm trying to avoid the conjecture in coming up with an opinion on if this is a good thing or not for me and my contributions or not. ie am I wasting time contributing to OSM if my contributions will be deleted if I disagree or at least choose not to agree with the new licensing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Click through type agreements have already been deemed as unenforceable, Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the legal list if you think it's too off-topic)? To my knowledge the enforceability is spotty and unclear. Trying to find the judgement, was a few years ago now. Might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click-through_license . A quick scan finds one case where the license was found unenforceable (because it was unconscionable), and several where it was found enforceable. I'm not sure what you consider a click through type agreement, but if you're including websites which have you click on some equivalent of I agree, I can't imagine that could possible be found unenforceable. Without it, e-commerce could never exist. In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms outlined. Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete. What about people unable to change the terms of their contributions due to being contributed by governments? Yeah, them too. But I read earlier that only 10% of contributors are currently active. What's going to be kept? Besides the public domain imports (like TIGER), I can't see it being more than 25%. And that means any fork that springs up will have 4 times as much data to start with. Am I underestimating the amount of data that will be kept? Am I being naive in believing that the data from people who don't respond is really going to be removed? I honestly can't see how this switch can possibly succeed. Unlike some others, I'm not angry about it, though. Mr. Lamping analogized earlier about a gun being to the heads of the contributors. But a better analogy would be that the OSMF is sticking a gun to its own head when it says agree to the changes or we'll pull the trigger. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two months now; this current discussion is the first that I have heard of the license-change issue. So, if there has been ongoing discussion of the issue in the last couple of months, it hasn't been on the general list. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: SteveC st...@asklater.com Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 18:35:13 To: Ulf Lampingulf.lamp...@googlemail.com Cc: talk@openstreetmap.orgtalk@openstreetmap.org; Tom Hughest...@compton.nu Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: SteveC schrieb: On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. Ulf! Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline your alternative suggestion? For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be fun! Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it! So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the mappers head - to keep the picture. Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most - the mappers? Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of consultations? Yours c. Steve Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
