database. But certainly a set of directions is itself a database, as anyone
who programmed LOGO knows.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
by the share alike clause of the license.
That's a big presumption. I would have expected that remapping would be done as
a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA data
at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
to be published under CC-BY-SA in
parallel with ODbL.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
is already the legal
situation) then its text needs to be approved by the OSMF board and a
2/3 vote of active contributors.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
ODbL/DbCL or other licences.
This split would add some useful checks and balances - among other things it
would prevent control of the servers being used to force through licence
changes.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
until then.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
I think the test must be the same as for any other data which OSMF does not have
permission to use. If a mapper added a node by copying from Google Maps, but
then another mapper moved it to a different position using a permitted data
source, is it okay to keep that node in the database?
--
Ed
its position
information is 'cleaned' somehow. The new position as often as not is
derived from the old position.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, and that location data
is part of the OSM map. The next version of the node, even if its position
has been adjusted, is likely to be derived from this data.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
if mapping from
GPS plus an existing out-of-copyright map you may trace a way which is about
halfway between your GPS trace and what you see on the old map - since neither
of them by itself is entirely accurate. Doing this makes the new path derived
from both the old one and the new one.
--
Ed Avis e
are not lawyers. So we have to use the
common-sense judgement of whether one piece of work builds on another.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Sorry, I appreciate your taking the time to go through the arguments on this
but I think I have said all I have to say about node positions. I'll let others
decide whether what I wrote makes sense.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk
be applied to such third-party-copyright situations going forward.
Originally it was promised that no big deletion would go ahead if it would cause
too much damage to the OSM data. Is that still the case and if so who is tasked
with deciding whether to pull the switch?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
the current licence, which
means CC-BY-SA - this was clarified a few months ago by the LWG I believe. Of
course in the majority of cases CT-able data is also ODbL-able.)
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
it now, right?
Maybe so, but it's not shown by the usual CT status maps. odbl=clean (or
perhaps
dbcl=clean?) would be a further tag to add in addition to ct=clean.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
version which does not
mention OSM by name, although the issues addressed are those relevant to our
project.
You can see the report at
http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
from speaking to the two
attorneys is that it's pretty clear: the underlying data of the map falls within
copyright. If you like, I could send you the full report which addresses OSM
and the ODbL specifically?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal
may wiggle through,
as with the exclusion of computer programs as such from patentability.)
In general I think that introducing the concept of database into licensing
causes more problems than it solves, and tends to muddle more than it clarifies,
but that's just my opinion.
--
Ed Avis e
where the underlying legal
situation is unclear.
More to the point, would it not be better to fix up ambiguities in a new version
of the ODbL? Migrating to it later would be pretty painless since the licence
is
forward-compatible.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
a small part of the picture, copyright being
at least as important (if the legal advice I got from Francis Davey relating to
European law is correct). Note that there is sui generis database right, and
separate from that there is database copyright. Database copyright is not owned
by the OSMF.
--
Ed
popped up on this
list.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
you like to join in
a conference call with the legal team so you can put it to them directly?
I expect I could arrange this.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
by every contributor. (Or else, a 2/3
vote of active contributors would allow 'ODbL with clarifications' to be used
as the official licence.) It's all a bit muddy.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
with this (as with everything else you wrote) but some
prefer a more aggressive approach.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
be the existing OSM map, and it could
just be used directly with CT/ODbL.
The fact that this is not happening shows that, as generally believed, it is not
possible to accept CC-BY-SA licensed data under a CT/ODbL regime.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com
for those using your
data).
The Creative Commons project also has several licences which they encourage as
being suitable for data as well as for creative works.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
also consider releasing as public domain.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
contributors.
Of course the OSMF would never do anything like that...
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
apologize for the unwarranted snarkiness.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
that, it would be
wonderful to publish it now and clean up the whole mess. (It would also greatly
help with people using external data sources, if we knew that copyright does
not apply.)
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
apply to your data. I've got a download of the OSM
data dump. I can repost it, right now, as public domain.
Thanks, that's interesting. Although he didn't in fact carry out his threat...
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
positions and seeing who blinks first.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Kolossos tim.alder@... writes:
My question is now under which license or terms we should ask for these
list so that they later reusable for OpenStreetMap. Would a CC-BY-SA ok
or should it be ODBL?
My understanding of the new terms is that neither would be acceptable.
--
Ed Avis e
'contents'. However, this is problematic; given the
file of map data, whether something is individually accessible depends entirely
on the computer program used to manipulate the file. At the extreme a whole
city might be individually accessible through some interface.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
of someone taking the
whole OSM map data but then arguing in court that what they took is 'database
contents' and therefore they are entitled to use it under the DbCL.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
of a 'database'?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes:
Put more simply Your Contents is anything you upload.
contents in the ODbL has a very different sense.
Thanks for clarifying. I think it's unfortunate that the same word was used
for both.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
to support the change.
It would be useful to have some way of labelling which changesets are ODbL-
compatible and which are not. I guess that is a separate problem which would
need to be addressed if and when there was a change of licence.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
to be explicitly stated in the CTs. The current proposed 1.2
version doesn't.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could
just keep on mapping.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
/Articles/417053/.
That is just one person, though.
I think all that can safely be said is that it doesn't help to attract mappers.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
of the project.
I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.
Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
, and if that's accepted
by the community, then go through the 2/3 vote process for any licence change.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
of the proposed CTs)
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
[OS OpenData licence]
But that isn't a problem now.
Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state
Does that mean it's still incompatible with version 1.0 of the contributor
terms?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
only accept first-class data, and wave a sad goodbye to those who won't
play.
The OSM project only publishes data 'with strings attached'. I think we should
not demand from others more than we are willing to do ourselves.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
to agree to them for existing contributions
you
would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have to
agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions too).
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
added
in the draft https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
forward, is to first sort out the
contributor terms and get general agreement, then have the discussion and vote
on whether to move to ODbL, dual-licensing, public domain or anything else.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
of these licences to be published and used
without requiring additional permission from me.)
Given such a choice and the appropriate community expectations, most people
would
choose option (A) if they trust the OSMF to do the right thing.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
it as realistic either, and I hope it won't
be attempted.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
change' or 'the OSMF is
there
to support the project but not control it' as community expectations or
a kind of 'constitution', rather than trying to put them into the CTs or other
legal documents.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
these days.
So I think that free and open is more like share-alike in being a term that
is open to interpretation rather than a factual property.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
broad ('any action
restricted by copyright') and the limitations of 'any free and open licence'
and a vote of 'active contributors' are so loosely specified, that it amounts
to almost the same thing in practice.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk
it is possible.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
there is a substantial investment. It
focuses on work not creativity. Lots of work in making a database
won't get you copyright but may get you database right.
It is much more likely that OSMF attracts database right than database
copyright.
Thanks for clarifying this.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
you still have a database,
albeit a smaller one. Even if you only want a list of all coffee shops you
still
have a database.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
that you then publish.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
to be protectable via sui generis right but not via copyright.)
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, then, that every country which has a database right also has
database copyright?
No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over,
Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in
Europe - is that so?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
, and it's not as strong
as ordinary copyright, please correct me.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' come
from
yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I, too, would
prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on? Shouldn't we stop adding
more legalese and just focus on transitioning OSM to PD or attribution-only?
--
Ed Avis e
' with 'supporting the licence change'.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
understand how the 'database' versus
'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in particular.
Does anybody?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
be
the crux of the issue.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
contents'. Could you
explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they
differ from the 'database' itself?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee
beyond
doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
should all simply license
our contributions under an agreed share-alike licence - but that is not part of
this discussion.) I'm just trying to winkle out exactly what the proposed CTs
are intended to mean.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal
their business.
IANAL but this is my understanding and I believe also the community norm.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
one ask, why have the attempted
contract-law stuff in the ODbL at all? Could it not be stripped out?
An ODbL-lite with the contract law stuff removed is a licence I could live with.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
wording.
I'd prefer some way of saying I got this data from X, much as
wikipedia does for image uploads.
Yes, I believe that each upload should be tagged with the data sources used.
(The practice of adding source tags to each object on the map is impractical
in my view.)
--
Ed Avis e
such maps would be a futile
exercise, although not actually prohibited by law?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project - rendering
data into map tiles and distributing them.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk
additional riders, and people can freely trace over them to make their own
CC-BY licensed map. (As long as they don't cheat by looking at the source
data!)
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other
People's
Contents'.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, that is a separate argument.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
restriction currently allowed in the CTs is attribution.
That is not specified by the CTs, even in the proposed version 1.2. They say
that 'OSMF agrees to attribute you or the copyright owner', but they do not
promise that any future licence chosen will have an attribution requirement.
--
Ed Avis e
specifically about maps and geodata and using more specific
terms would work a lot better.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
draft please?
I would state something like 'any free and open licence(s), as long as the
chosen
licence(s) maintain the requirement that contributors be attributed'.
If you promise that then the business about OSMF agreeing to provide a web page
is not necessary.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
that an individual contributor could
provide data under the terms 'CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0 is fine, but not anything
else'?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ignore
any licence terms as well.)
Is it simplest to keep the tile license the same as it is now rather
than risk compatibility problems with downstream consumers of tiles?
I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any
compatibility problem.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
, if the confusion on this
list is anything to go by.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
To be clear - of course the existing OSM map is not covered by ODbL, but please
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
with the proposed CTs?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes:
To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
current contributor terms.
Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
point of principle, is open
to debate. But it's certainly the case.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to accept
future
contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to
re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
of
that.)
Let's leave Kosovo, etc. out of the discussion.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
prefer the ODbL but are unable to agree to the CTs since they don't own
all the data they have contributed.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Markus_g marku...@... writes:
What was the original vote deciding?
The vote, of OSMF members only, was on 'I approve the process' or 'I do not
approve the process'. (Those were the two choices in the vote.)
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal
could not do likewise. Without extra permission,
we could not incorporate ODbL data into our map, even if it had been derived
from
OSM in the first place.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
difficulty seems to be 'grant extra
powers to the OSMF that ordinary contributors don't have'. Sigh...
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Out of interest has anyone asked the Open Data Commons people (or person) for
their opinion on the proposed contributor terms? I know the ODbL licence was
developed jointly with them but I imagine the CTs were not.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
.
Some people want to import data, some don't. Both groups need to be supported.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
be able to import or use any
data from these ODbL-covered data releases?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
in the current terms and conditions,
but I would welcome any corrections. However, where ambiguity exists, it might
be wise to take the more conservative interpretation.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
