[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
Liz, You asked about the early intent of the Contributor Terms before they were re-written by legal counsel. As promised: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
At 10:46 AM 14/08/2010, Rob Myers wrote: On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote: If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary. The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find out which dataset was used to produce it, and from a given dataset you can find out who produced it. BY-SA already requires less attribution than the GNU FDL, and this was an issue for some people when Wikipedia was relicenced - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Attribution - Rob. And section 4 of the Contributor Terms is designed for first-stage attribution of data donors irrespective of license used. Thanks Rob for the article. I was struck by the moderate importance attached in the survey result to the wiki(pedia) history page. It has bothered me that though attribution is a good abstract idea , we lacked a similar mechanism in a database of highly factual non-immutable data to make it sticky. It strikes me that the work by Matt now gives a practical analogue of that in the history planet dump that has now been published. Speculatively, it is perhaps something we should commit to continue publishing as part of our attribution commitments. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT?
- Original Message - From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:38 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT? (Was [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?) At 10:38 AM 14/08/2010, Francis Davey wrote: On 14 August 2010 09:22, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give OSMF rights that you don't possess. CC-BY-SA does not grant you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF. Its as simple as that isn't it? That looks right to me. In order to comply with section 2 of the contributor terms and contributor must be able to grant an extremely widely drafted licence. If the contributor is merely a licensee under CC-BY-SA they will not be able to comply with section 2 of the contributor terms. I also think its pretty clear that, in context, section 1 would not be complied with either. It would be impossible for a CC licensee to agree to You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below. since CC-BY-SA does not give that permission. Apologies if this misses the point: I am a lawyer not a mapper. Francis, thank you. And I am a mapper not a lawyer so this may be a dumb question relating to CC-BY (not CC-BY-SA): If Section 2 of the Contributor Terms [1] were amended from Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, ... to Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, ... do you see at least converging compatibility with CC-BY [2]? Or indeed it is implicit now? Intent: (1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms without need for derogation. (2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices. The license used in section 3 might vary over the next 100 years due to the freedoms in Section 2 but Section 4 remains immutable. We attribute our sources but not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so. If you say not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so isn't that a breach CC-BY terms which, Under 8b, requires Licensor offers to the recipient a licence to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the licence granted to You under this Licence [2 below]. Surely if we use CC-BY data, we have for require (force) users down the line to attibute it to the origional authors. David (3) Avoid the attribution chain problem now. Not get into the situation where end users making maps are forced to check whether just possibly they are making a map with data from a 100 agencies and have to attribute on the map. This is the real reason I am twisting and turning not to just say we will accept any attribution terms required. We want to migrate from CCs license specifically because they are not suited, it would be a great shame to bring back all the ambiguity via the back door. Mike [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2] If a specific topical version is useful, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT?
At 05:50 PM 22/08/2010, David Groom wrote: Intent: (1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms without need for derogation. (2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices. The license used in section 3 might vary over the next 100 years due to the freedoms in Section 2 but Section 4 remains immutable. We attribute our sources but not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so. If you say not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so isn't that a breach CC-BY terms which, Under 8b, requires Licensor offers to the recipient a licence to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the licence granted to You under this Licence [2 below]. Surely if we use CC-BY data, we have for require (force) users down the line to attibute it to the origional authors. David Yes, that really is the rub, isn't it? I do not see much of an issue with sideways attributions where a derivative geodata database has been from OSM as the main source. The Deriver copies http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution and uses it appropriately. Things become difficult when geodata sources really open up and OSM is a major but amongst thousands of geospatial resources and folks will be routinely creating multiple mixed derived databases and them mixing them too. Governments move on to more realistic licensing but we can't. Oops. But I may be being pessimistic. Then there is upwards attribution. Software generally does not demand that a book attribute the word-processor used, the various image packages used to make the picture, how field notes were made ... CC-BY is vague on this as, like CC BY SA, it is not written for databases. Are we really going to have to force any map-maker to acknowledge hundreds of sources because they just might be adding to a particular area?? We seem to be dealing with all this at the moment by simply ignoring it. Mike PS http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution only attributes Australian Bureau of Statistics as an Australian source. I've counted at least 6 CC-BY licenses in the import catalogue. :-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
- Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: Why are we changing the licence? Well [1] states among other things that [CC-BY-SA] is therefore very difficult to interpret, and we have indeed seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found. If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our data were asked to take a cautious approach. And that seems very reasonable stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not categorically say how CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was needed. Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to our data, it seems reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be blindly importing CC-BY-SA data into OSM. I presume we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. Or am I missing something? David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT. CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM. 80n Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that. As I titled the post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of the CT's ODbL. I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT ODbl is where I asked if we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. As such it then wouldn't matter if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT ODbL as we would not be relying on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison. David 80n Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and surely the CC-BY-SA permissions flow though into the OSM data. In which case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still exist. Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about it on the implementation plan [2] David [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] New license for business: meh
Hi, I'm sort of sick of allegations that what I say and do in the community is somehow tainted by myself doing business in OSM. Here's a quote from talk a while ago: Chris Browet wrote: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me nervous and doubtful. I assure you it does not have to make you nervous. Just because someone earns money doesn't automatically make him an asshole with no morals. Basically, everyone who writes what you wrote above somehow seems to want to say: We must always consider that he might be lying to us because he wants to make more money. This makes me sad; I spend a lot of time with OSM stuff, and I could certainly be making a lot more money if I'd take a job in some IT consultancy. But I chose to work in OSM because that way I get to do what I like. Hear? WHAT I LIKE. I have found a way to earn a living from doing what I like, and helping to move the project forward while I'm doing that. Until now, I have had exactly one prospective client who, after I had explained the CC-BY-SA to him, want away with a no thank you, and I have had exactly one prospective client for whom the CC-BY-SA would have been fine but his project wouldn't work with the ODbL (forcing him to release a database he would not have wanted to release), so he went away too. So the ODbL isn't really better or worse for business - it depends, or at least that's my view. In a way, of course, I have a business interest in OSM growing and becoming better, but can you hold that against me? You could also say that I have a business interest in the license matter being resolved one way or the other becaus that saves me from having to explain *two* licenses to every prospective customer which is a bit painful sometimes. And as for me being a key player - I am writing a lot on the lists, I am mapping a bit, I have written some software, and I am on the data working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)... 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] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: - Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Why are we changing the licence? Well [1] states among other things that [CC-BY-SA] is therefore very difficult to interpret, and we have indeed seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found. If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our data were asked to take a cautious approach. And that seems very reasonable stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not categorically say how CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was needed. Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to our data, it seems reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be blindly importing CC-BY-SA data into OSM. I presume we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. Or am I missing something? David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT. CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM. 80n Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that. As I titled the post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of the CT's ODbL. David, I know that you realise that. I just wanted to clarify this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may not have the detailed background knowledge or stumble on this thread out of context. I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT ODbl is where I asked if we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. As such it then wouldn't matter if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT ODbL as we would not be relying on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison. David 80n Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and surely the CC-BY-SA permissions flow though into the OSM data. In which case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still exist. Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about it on the implementation plan [2] David [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ 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] New license for business: meh
I can't speak for Chris, but you don't make me nervous because you're quite open and you don't drive any issues that may have business implications. On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, I'm sort of sick of allegations that what I say and do in the community is somehow tainted by myself doing business in OSM. Here's a quote from talk a while ago: Chris Browet wrote: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me nervous and doubtful. I assure you it does not have to make you nervous. Just because someone earns money doesn't automatically make him an asshole with no morals. Basically, everyone who writes what you wrote above somehow seems to want to say: We must always consider that he might be lying to us because he wants to make more money. This makes me sad; I spend a lot of time with OSM stuff, and I could certainly be making a lot more money if I'd take a job in some IT consultancy. But I chose to work in OSM because that way I get to do what I like. Hear? WHAT I LIKE. I have found a way to earn a living from doing what I like, and helping to move the project forward while I'm doing that. Until now, I have had exactly one prospective client who, after I had explained the CC-BY-SA to him, want away with a no thank you, and I have had exactly one prospective client for whom the CC-BY-SA would have been fine but his project wouldn't work with the ODbL (forcing him to release a database he would not have wanted to release), so he went away too. So the ODbL isn't really better or worse for business - it depends, or at least that's my view. In a way, of course, I have a business interest in OSM growing and becoming better, but can you hold that against me? You could also say that I have a business interest in the license matter being resolved one way or the other becaus that saves me from having to explain *two* licenses to every prospective customer which is a bit painful sometimes. And as for me being a key player - I am writing a lot on the lists, I am mapping a bit, I have written some software, and I am on the data working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)... 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license for business: meh
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I can't speak for Chris, but you [Frederik] don't make me nervous because you're quite open and you don't drive any issues that may have business implications. He doesn't make me nervous, but I wouldn't want him (or anyone else) to have any say in the relicensing of my contributions. On the other hand, who cares? You make me nervous and doubtful. You make me sad. Isn't there a discuss-your-feelings-l for this stuff? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the or got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the or got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. Perhaps any lawyers on this list would comment on this matter in general? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. What jurisdiction(s) did that lawyer practice in? Also, did you get a chance to ask him if the second sentence (*) applies If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents? In any case, as a contract of adhesion, the courts are likely to interpret the contract in favor of the non-OSMF litigant. (*) You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
