Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The use of OSM images in a promotional video
Hi Elliot, For me, yes and yes but. I mapped most of central Sydney myself originally and am delighted. Your use clearly indicates two separate layers which the community says is OK, you don't need to share alike the 3D model ... though perhaps you can consider it? As for the credits, please consider putting an attribution in a corner of the map. As long as the credit is on screen long enough to be read, it does not have to remain in view during panning or zooming. With my License Working Group hat on: Under the current CC BY SA license, there is no clear guide as to how attribution should be made. The credit needs to appear in a place reasonable to the medium or means you are utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as you would any other map supplier. A community consensus can be found at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F and we are evolving an OSM Foundation one-stop-shop resource at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License, (feedback on clarity welcome). Best of luck with your project, Mike At 06:01 09/08/2010, Elliot Sumner wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_29DA2EA641F1034AACF370880EE2098CF16122EE7FEXVMBX0154exc_ Hi all - I'm doing an animation for a promotional corporate video, including an animated 3D model of Sydney, which I'd like to overlay with the OSM map of Sydney. Presumably this is ok as long as I include the appropriate accreditation in the credits - could someone please clarify for me? The video would be out in the wild (youtube etc.) and would be used as a promotional tool for our company (Seeker Wireless). We provide mobile phone location technology, I'd be illustrating the geographic location of people using Seeker Wireless products. Thanks -Elliot ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Anthony o...@... writes: There isn't a switch to ODbL. Just a (not very practical IMHO) plan to do so at some point in the future, Did you see my addendum? I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing those derivatives under CC-BY-SA. I don't trust them to do so because 1) they don't have any detailed plans of how they're going to do so; 2) the majority of OSMers seem to be under the impression that the data loss is not going to be massive; and 3) it's pretty much impossible - short of starting from a blank slate perhaps plus public domain data such as TIGER, you're never going to catch a large portion of derivative works. I agree with all that - but I consider it to be their problem, not mine. I'm still working hard to create a free map, as appeared to be the goal when I signed up. Of course I expect the project to respect the CC-BY-SA terms under which I and others have contributed. I'm currently working on a fork. I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual licence.) But if a fork proves necessary, I'll be happy to help. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Anthony, Anthony wrote: I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing those derivatives under CC-BY-SA. In December last year we had a guy also called Anthony on legal-talk who said: I live in the United States, where factual databases are public domain, and while I have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever, I do have a problem with agreeing to a contract limiting my rights to use the OSM database. If that was you back then: Why should you request OSMF to properly remove all of your work when at the same time you have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever? If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract. I'm currently working on a fork. Still, or again? As far as I remember you were working on a fork in 2009 as well. I think that's the most productive work I can do with OSM at the moment. Unfortunately I don't have the resources right now for a public fork, so unless/until someone with such resources (*) does step up, my work is going to be mostly private. Maybe you could re-use the server previously used for your complete Wikipedia fork, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#The_Mcfly_Network Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info) who are not a fork of OSM but acknowledge OSM as inspiration and are not planning to use ODbL as far as I can see. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: By the way, the database right exists - in certain jurisdictions like the EU - even if it is not asserted. That means, OSMF is likely to hold database rights over the database even today. But CC-BY-SA says nothing about granting somebody use of the database. That's not quite the whole story; it does grant you a 'license', not merely a 'copyright license', to do the things listed in section 3. If you are granted 'a license to reproduce the Work', for example, it's hard to argue that this does not cover making a copy of the database. The text of CC-BY-SA does not limit the rights granted; it says that the licence lasts for the duration of copyright (so perhaps in 70 years there would be a problem, if somehow the database right lasted even longer) but does not say that only rights reserved by copyright law are being granted. Unfortunately, CC-BY-SA 2.0 is flawed in this manner. It grants you a license to exercise the rights in the Work and defines the Work as the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License. So if it's not copyrightable, it's not part of the Work, and there's no license granted. But this is fixed in CC-BY-SA 3.0. And any derivative of a CC-BY-SA 2.0 work can be used under CC-BY-SA 3.0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Ed Avis wrote: Anthony writes: I'm currently working on a fork. I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual licence.) But if a fork proves necessary, I'll be happy to help. My impression (though I've not done a rigorous survey) is that the vast majority of the core developers are pro-ODbL so I guess you might need a bit of help getting it up and running. Certainly I'm happy to help you with anything Potlatch-related, not because I'd use a fork myself, but to encourage diversity and all that. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5388808.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anthony, Anthony wrote: I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing those derivatives under CC-BY-SA. In December last year we had a guy also called Anthony on legal-talk who said: I live in the United States, where factual databases are public domain, and while I have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever, I do have a problem with agreeing to a contract limiting my rights to use the OSM database. If that was you back then: Why should you request OSMF to properly remove all of your work when at the same time you have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever? IIRC, SteveC convinced me that my work should be sharealike a short time after I wrote that. Also I read numerous arguments which convinced me that OSM is not just a factual database. That was, I believe, one of my first posts to the list about the matter, and certainly before I realized what a bumbling mess this whole process was. In any case, I think you see one of the reasons I've stopped contributing, rather than contributing now and expecting that my work would be removed should I choose not to go ODbL. If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract. Why should what I think (or what I thought) have anything to do with what you're allowed to do? I'm currently working on a fork. Still, or again? As far as I remember you were working on a fork in 2009 as well. Your memory about what I do must be better than mine. It's certainly possible. I downloaded the full history dump pretty much as soon as it was released and started trying to reconstruct the OSM database. But I don't know if I'd call it working on a fork. I think that's the most productive work I can do with OSM at the moment. Unfortunately I don't have the resources right now for a public fork, so unless/until someone with such resources (*) does step up, my work is going to be mostly private. Maybe you could re-use the server previously used for your complete Wikipedia fork, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#The_Mcfly_Network I can't remember if that was the machine I currently have in my closet, or if it was hosted on a virtual server. In any case, I took it down years ago, after it stopped making enough money to pay for itself. I really enjoy working with huge databases. Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info) who are not a fork of OSM but acknowledge OSM as inspiration and are not planning to use ODbL as far as I can see. Nah. Forks are more fun. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 9 August 2010 23:11, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info) who are not a fork of OSM but acknowledge OSM as inspiration and are not planning to use ODbL as far as I can see. I seem to recall a project to try a PD version of OSM from scratch and which is based in Australia. Is CommonMap that project? I'm not sure because CommonMap is CC-BY, not PD or even CC0. As far as I know they changed their mind so they could import AU govt data... and the govt in turn can take their contributions back... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Ed Avis wrote: Anthony writes: I'm currently working on a fork. I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual licence.) But if a fork proves necessary, I'll be happy to help. My impression (though I've not done a rigorous survey) is that the vast majority of the core developers are pro-ODbL so I guess you might need a bit of help getting it up and running. Certainly I'm happy to help you with anything Potlatch-related, not because I'd use a fork myself, but to encourage diversity and all that. :) Thanks to both of you. I'd like to reiterate that right now the fork I'm currently working on is purely private, by which I mean that I have no current plans to let the public edit it. If I can figure out a way to make the fork public without spending a bunch of money, I'll do so, but so far I can't figure that part out. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] (Not) Removing data
I have been away from the grand fray for several weeks due to personal matters and have been catching up with threads on this list. One question, I think from Liz, was who decided to remove data. That got me thinking as there was never any explicit decision point. Therefore I have a question which is more moral and ethical than legal at this point. We get a high proportion of data under ODbL and decide to switch over to it. If someone does not accept the new license, (I am really thinking of folks who never respond) and we have reasonable made efforts to reach them, are we really obligated to remove their data from the ODbL live database unless they exert their original copyright and request us to do so? A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views? Precedents? Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (Not) Removing data
On 10 August 2010 01:29, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: they exert their original copyright and request us to do so? A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views? Precedents? This is a slippery slope, and it would give precedent to what ever comes next with OSM. I think it was Ed that pointed out the other day, when he signed up all he agreed to was CC-by-SA and he assumed since the heavy emphasis put on most issues with regards to copyright is if in doubt don't import it, would mean OSM(F) of all groups would have more respect for other people's decisions. You also have some users that have potentially died and in which case you need to seek permission from who ever inherits the copyright of the estate. You also have to assume that some will object in future, so this may have an ongoing effect for some time, even if you do decide to just carte blanche relicense anyone not objecting. Not to mention that current contributors haven't even been asked, and so that just increases the likelihood of problems by delaying asking. As I said, this is a slippery slope, how much of your ethics are you willing to give up? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Heiko, Heiko Jacobs wrote: If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract. Did I miss something? On https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_0cc77vdd9 I only read this three possibilities: [Agree button] [Agree button and I consider my consider my contributions Public Domain] [Decline button] For yours there has to be also [Decline button, but I consider my contributions Public Domain] for not removing his edits ... No, I'll simply take his data and upload it under an account which I sign up to ODbL. I'm against wholesale taking data and re-licensing it under the assumption that it is unprotected anyway. But if there is someone who, for whatever reason, cannot be bothered to fill out the form, but tells me that they consider their data PD, then I have no problem uploading a copy of their data. If it later turns out they lied, or were certifiably insane at the time they made the statement, I can always remove it again. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract. No, I'll simply take his data and upload it under an account which I sign up to ODbL. For the record, I don't recall ever saying that I consider my contributions to be in the public domain. And I'd prefer you not this. If you do it anyway, am I going to go through the trouble of actually trying to sue you? I guess I'm better off not answering that question, but you can probably guess the answer. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Anthony wrote: If that was you back then: Why should you request OSMF to properly remove all of your work when at the same time you have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever? IIRC, SteveC convinced me that my work should be sharealike a short time after I wrote that. Also I read numerous arguments which convinced me that OSM is not just a factual database. That was, I believe, one of my first posts to the list about the matter, and certainly before I realized what a bumbling mess this whole process was. It's not a bumbling mess. What's happening is very simple: The people on the LWG are too nice. Every time someone comes up with either a issue with either the process or license, the LWG take time to address it. I would estimate about 70 or 80% of these things are either bonkers, FUD or restatements of previous bonkers/FUD things. Given that the LWG are all volunteers and meet once a week and there have been hundreds of these emails, rants and people on the call, that means they literally spend years at this point dealing with this stuff. Thus, it slows everything down. Oh and this and other threads going on right now are good examples. It's explicitly slowing down and complicating the process, which is probably the aim of several of the people here. I completely agree. I've been pushing for this whole thing to be wrapped up as quickly as possible. The longer it drags on the more damage there is to the community and the project. It's a pity you have no involvement with the LWG Steve, I'm sure you'd be get them to focus on the need to bring this bumbling mess to a rapid conclusion. Referring back to a previous thread about the need for a community vote. There seems to be a view by the authors of the Contributor Terms that a license change would be legitimate if 2/3rds of active contributors voted for it within a 3 week window. Looks to me like you could have it all done and dusted in a little more than three weeks from now, which would be, um, September 1st. Go on, you haven't got the guts to call a vote. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: Imports are bad enough in the effect they have on the surveying community. You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian coastline. However If there is mapper time to spare , the Phillipines coastline needs love first. To all those who have helped us in cleaning our coastlines[1] from the SRTM-derivation to Landsat, thank you very much. And we in the Philippines support the move to ODbL. :-) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Coastline_Corrections ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
2010/8/10 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: The Ideal would be PD/CC0, because that wouldn't limit us in so many ways. That's not true, it wouldn't limit what terms could be placed on end users of the data, it would increasingly limit what contributors can do. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
2010/8/9 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: Yes, easier said than done. But in my opinion a free and open geodatabase of the world is only free if it doesn't impose limits on it's uses. If you use OSM in a work, say that you used OSM, and don't sue anybody for copying that work. Is that really such a horrible limit? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
