Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 21:55, Jim Burt jimb...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings, I'm interested in using OpenStreetMap for an internally facing website for my company (no public access). This is going to be a small app with very limited users and page views. I've reviewed the licensing, and this appears to be acceptable use. Can anyone confirm this? Yes, I'm also pretty sure that you can just completely ignore the license since you're only using the data within your own organization. The licence only kicks in when you're doing re-distribution to third parties. (See e.g. Google's use of Linux, they don't re-distribute their changes, and don't have to) ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I'm also pretty sure that you can just completely ignore the license since you're only using the data within your own organization. The licence only kicks in when you're doing re-distribution to third parties. (See e.g. Google's use of Linux, they don't re-distribute their changes, and don't have to) That's a feature of the license, not of licensing schemes. A license may have any number of terms in. It might say that any changes (internal or not) are required to be redistributed back to the upstream provider. This is a term that the original Plan 9 license had, for example. The issue of Redistribution is complicated by the fact that various licenses use the term and some use other terms. For example the term is removed from GPLv3 and replaced with the word Convey, which is defined[1]. The ODbL also uses the term Convey and defines it differently and then uses the term Re-utilization to mean something similar to what GPLv3 calls Convey. The various licenses have various terms of usage, and I think what you (Ævar) are referring to is that GPL says in section 9 that acceptance of the license isn't required for anything other than modification and conveyance. But that's a feature of the GPL's wording. Similarly ODbL (and I'm only using ODbL because it's more clear)'s section 4 has fewer requirements for internal use than public use. In other words, the OP does have to comply to the license internally, but the burden of doing so for internal use is very low. - Serge [1] Defining what might otherwise seem straightforward terms is pretty common in contracts and actually clarifies what might otherwise be murky waters. ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, I'm also pretty sure that you can just completely ignore the license since you're only using the data within your own organization. The licence only kicks in when you're doing re-distribution to third parties. Could you point out in the license text where own organization and third party are defined and where it says that CC or BY do not apply for the first ? One point is to say as soon as it stays internal, any license terms infringement will not be visible. Another is to say that the license does not apply inside organisations. And yes, it's the wrong list for such discussion. Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact for the legal talks. Pieren ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: A license may have any number of terms in. It might say that any changes (internal or not) are required to be redistributed back to the upstream provider. This is a term that the original Plan 9 license had, for example. It might, but then, that clause might not be enforcible, any more than a clause in a coloring book which says you aren't allowed to color the grass red. This of course could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well. ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:31, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I'm also pretty sure that you can just completely ignore the license since you're only using the data within your own organization. The licence only kicks in when you're doing re-distribution to third parties. Could you point out in the license text where own organization and third party are defined and where it says that CC or BY do not apply for the first ? Copyright law covers distribution. As long as you're not distributing a work to third parties you don't have to worry about it. If you haven't signed a contract nobody can force you to adhare to a license for a copyrighted work until you start distributing it. I can scribble on my Sunday newspaper without caring about copyright, but if I distribute it to other people I have to start worrying. The same thing applies to corporations. The Sunday Newspaper Inc. can distribute a proprietary third-party image around their office while they're deciding what to do with it. They don't have to worry about contacting someone else for royalties until they put it in print and thus start distributing the work to third parties. So I don't see why someone couldn't completely ignore the CC-BY-SA when using OSM for personal or intra-office use. They're not re-distributing anything, so the licenes doesn't apply. The above is just my understanding of copyright law. I'm not a lawyer and it may all be BS. But as far as I can see it's backed up by several examples in the wild. ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
Hi, On 5 August 2010 14:08, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I'm also pretty sure that you can just completely ignore the license since you're only using the data within your own organization. The licence only kicks in when you're doing re-distribution to third parties. (See e.g. Google's use of Linux, they don't re-distribute their changes, and don't have to) That's a feature of the license, not of licensing schemes. A license may have any number of terms in. It might say that any changes (internal or not) are required to be redistributed back to the upstream provider. This is a term that the original Plan 9 license had, for example. There are conditions in which the organisation will be considered the user of the data, and not the individuals in the organisation. Similarly the organisation can be party to the ODbL contract instead of an employee. Surely one of these conditions is that the employment contracts of all the employees oblige them to protect the company's ip and obey contracts the company has with others (and most employment contracts do say that). So in these conditions, as Ævar says, they can do whatever they want internally. IMO On that note the debian free software guidelines do include a test that can be applied to a license text that ensure users don't have to do anything unless they redistribute the binaries for example (the desert island test). Cheers ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
El día Thursday 05 August 2010 16:27:49, andrzej zaborowski dijo: On that note the debian free software guidelines do include a test that can be applied to a license text that ensure users don't have to do anything unless they redistribute the binaries for example (the desert island test). And we have the cake test, inspired by the DFSG: http://blog.okfn.org/2010/03/15/the-cake-test-of-freedom/ -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta compleja. ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
2010/8/5 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es And we have the cake test, inspired by the DFSG: http://blog.okfn.org/2010/03/15/the-cake-test-of-freedom/ But the cake is a lie. Emilie Laffray ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
[OSM-dev] licensing question
Greetings, I'm interested in using OpenStreetMap for an internally facing website for my company (no public access). This is going to be a small app with very limited users and page views. I've reviewed the licensing, and this appears to be acceptable use. Can anyone confirm this? If this is addressed elsewhere, or I'm asking in the wrong list, please point me in the correct direct. Regards, Jim ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
On Wednesday 04 August 2010 23:55:03 Jim Burt wrote: I'm interested in using OpenStreetMap for an internally facing website for my company (no public access). This is going to be a small app with very limited users and page views. I've reviewed the licensing, and this appears to be acceptable use. Can anyone confirm this? Yep, no problem. Anyway, please do say somewhere that the data comes from OSM. Share-alike provisions won't kick in, as you're not redistributing the data. And low page views = no problems with the tile usage policy. If this is addressed elsewhere, or I'm asking in the wrong list, please point me in the correct direct. Well, this should belong to legal@, but don't sweat about it. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] licensing question
Thanks. We'll definitely credit accordingly. Regards, Jim On 8/4/10, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote: On Wednesday 04 August 2010 23:55:03 Jim Burt wrote: I'm interested in using OpenStreetMap for an internally facing website for my company (no public access). This is going to be a small app with very limited users and page views. I've reviewed the licensing, and this appears to be acceptable use. Can anyone confirm this? Yep, no problem. Anyway, please do say somewhere that the data comes from OSM. Share-alike provisions won't kick in, as you're not redistributing the data. And low page views = no problems with the tile usage policy. If this is addressed elsewhere, or I'm asking in the wrong list, please point me in the correct direct. Well, this should belong to legal@, but don't sweat about it. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode -- Sent from my mobile device ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
