Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compatibility of new license with old
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 August 2010 10:28, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 08/27/2010 04:43 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I would like to know if the new license is compatible with the old one. will we be able to use CC-SA-2.0 licensed data or we will have to get new contracts with the donators of data? for example, we have gotten much of the data for Kosovo donated under written contract for CC-SA-20, many users helped import this data into osm. even if those users agree to relicense, it does not mean that the original data can be relicensed. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.) The new licence is incompatible with the old. BY-SA 2.0 data cannot be placed under it without the rightsholder agreeing to relicence. Indeed. But the new licence is more compatible with other licences (including the old) where you want to produce mash ups and other works that combine data from more than one source. Guys, so you are saying that I will have to go back to all the people who donated data and relicense that so other people will be able to use their data in a more commercial manner? I think that some will say no. The problem is that we got data also from some GIS companies who wanted non commercial only. The cc protected them in some way. I will have to go back and rework all the contracts. I hope that someone will host the kosovo data after osm will delete it. what a mess. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compatibility of new license with old
Le samedi 28 août 2010 à 11:14, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com a écrit : The problem is that we got data also from some GIS companies who wanted non commercial only. The cc protected them in some way. I will have to go back and rework all the contracts. (as this is legal-talk, I must say that IANAL, thi sis only my personal understanding) Then you are already in problem, because the actual license used by OSM, CC- BY-SA, does not forbid commercial use (it doesn't have an NC clause). So if some companies provided you data with a non-commercial clause it is already incompatible with the current license used by OSM, so I guess such data should be removed, or a better agreement has to be found with tose companies. regards -- Renaud Michel Mike didn't say that it was licensed NC I'm sure that the data was licensed under the licence current for OSM at the time. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compatibility of new license with old
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote: Le samedi 28 août 2010 à 11:14, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com a écrit : The problem is that we got data also from some GIS companies who wanted non commercial only. The cc protected them in some way. I will have to go back and rework all the contracts. (as this is legal-talk, I must say that IANAL, thi sis only my personal understanding) Then you are already in problem, because the actual license used by OSM, CC- BY-SA, does not forbid commercial use (it doesn't have an NC clause). So if some companies provided you data with a non-commercial clause it is already incompatible with the current license used by OSM, so I guess such data should be removed, or a better agreement has to be found with tose companies. yes of course, originally they wanted non commercial, I was able to convince them to use CCSA. we got the data under CC-SA-2.0 i am just saying that it was a compromise for them. The companies want to protect their data and you have to show them that the new license offers them the same protection or better than the old. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: please see this as well, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual information. Quote: Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases. Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/ Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information: Reference: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision. ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under our CC-BY-SA license. they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract... Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the Database Directive but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. PLEASE... Follow ups on legal-talk list. Thread started here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004221.html Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: please see this as well, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual information. Quote: Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases. Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/ Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information: Reference: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html Well, lets look at this for a minute. We started out endorsing the use of CC licenses on the copyrightable elements of databases but not the data itself. After about three years of research we decided that was a really Bad Thing if what we wanted was data integration. Factual information is one thing, the fact that the Eiffel tower is in paris can be copied, but the osm map of the Eiffel tower is not really the fact, but someones copyrightable elements, someone drew it there based on facts. Really, I am not worried about data integration, but getting data. It does not bother me that other people cannot just take my work and use it under a different license. My purpose in creating a map is just that, to create a map, to share it, to work with others to create a good map. Integration with other maps is not the purpose or the goal. ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision. ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under our CC-BY-SA license. So why is it not compatible? why do we need to relicense? they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract... Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the Database Directive but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on copyright and not a contract. please reread the gpl, read moglen; http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html The essence of copyright law, like other systems of property rules, is the power to exclude. The copyright holder is legally empowered to exclude all others from copying, distributing, and making derivative works. This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license--that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. Basically , you are asking us to give up our copyright and contract our data out to you, but what do we get in return? I don't see a need for this at all. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, another million objects that can be added in just a few weeks? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004107.html I wonder how many million of objects he plans to remove and in the process upset contributors until there are no more contributors to keep adding in these millions of objects. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:22 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, another million objects that can be added in just a few weeks? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004107.html I wonder how many million of objects he plans to remove and in the process upset contributors until there are no more contributors to keep adding in these millions of objects. I wonder how long you are going to keep targeting Frederik as if he is the only one to blame for this? I know you are frustrated with the whole licensing problem, but please, stop targeting people. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 09:32, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder how long you are going to keep targeting Frederik as if he is the only one to blame for this? He keeps making himself the target when he keeps insulting sections of the community like he does. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Duane, I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. The license change is not my personal hobby so I'm surprised you should single me out in the way you do, even using my name in message subjects. I'm sorry if I should have hurt your feelings by pointing out that Nearmap-derived data is only a minuscle part of OSM as a whole; I think that it is important to refer to facts once in a while when emotions run high. Removing data that is incompatible with our license is something we do almost every day. People accidentally import batches of noncommercial data - sure it hurts to remove it but should we change our license to noncommercial just to keep it? People in Germany have traced tons of buildings from sources that were incompatible with out license, and we removed them. Sometimes those who did the work left the project as a consequence because they felt that we shouldn't take legal issues so seriously. I don't think that there is data in OSM that is so precious that we need to risk OSM's future just to be able to hold on to that data. Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a continuity fork so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. 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] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the Database Directive but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on copyright and not a contract. please reread the gpl, read moglen; http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and the managers. As giving rights to OSMF: It is just a pooling mechanism. Instead of 10,000 contributors each having their own opinion about the next license, we then only have a few ideas and the decision is made by voting. Then a few contributors can't block something good because they're having a bad day. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. Since the data is CC-by-SA, it doesn't seem likely. The license change is not my personal hobby so I'm surprised you should single me out in the way you do, even using my name in message subjects. I'm sorry if I should have hurt your feelings by pointing out that Nearmap-derived data is only a minuscle part of OSM as a whole; I think that it is important to refer to facts once in a while when emotions run high. What you don't seem to realise is while Nearmap might be a small fraction but your comments are in turn setting things up to make it MUCH more difficult to get data from suppliers in future, regardless if it is government entities, mapping companies or aerial imagery companies. This is commonly referred to as death by a thousand cuts, a small cut here and there wouldn't seem like much on their own, but combined it is enough to kill a bull. I don't think that there is data in OSM that is so precious that we need to risk OSM's future just to be able to hold on to that data. You also have to consider the human factor, people went to a lot of time, effort and trouble not only to import the data but to organise getting that data in the first place, only to be told that you wasted your efforts, so you've just insulted entire countries, you not only loose data but also those that put in the hard work because they'll completely give up trying to do anything, or they'll use their efforts elsewhere where people do appreciate their efforts. Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a continuity fork so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. And the people will go with that data, is that really what you want? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a continuity fork so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them. A fork will be a very bad thing. Even if the users are split 80-20, there will be a lot of duplication. Some people will dual license and then there will be imports from the other branch of the fork. Computing resource requirements will nearly double. Outsiders will think that the community is not getting along. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 00:48, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. Since the data is CC-by-SA, it doesn't seem likely. From what I can see the data is CC-BY. http://www.archive.org/details/Kosova_Road_Data_from_iMMAP The attribution question is still being dealt with by LWG's legal council. I don't see there being an issue. As has been said before and recorded in the LWG minutes, the LWG will of course look at these situations individually and also help re-negotiate existing imports where needed. John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 10:27, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: From what I can see the data is CC-BY. http://www.archive.org/details/Kosova_Road_Data_from_iMMAP The attribution question is still being dealt with by LWG's legal council. I don't see there being an issue. I was going on what Mike had said, he made no reference to a wiki page. John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 01:33, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap. Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years? Hell no. I see it being sorted out fairly quickly. As per update email to talk-au list the LWG has been having difficulty arranging a telephone conference call upto now because of the number of timezones involved. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the Database Directive but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on copyright and not a contract. please reread the gpl, read moglen; http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law, contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and the managers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft no, copyleft is only based on copyright. sorry. As giving rights to OSMF: It is just a pooling mechanism. Instead of 10,000 contributors each having their own opinion about the next license, we then only have a few ideas and the decision is made by voting. Then a few contributors can't block something good because they're having a bad day. That is a completely different issue, that is copyright assignment or IP pooling. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
