Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 11/18/2010 10:09 AM, Ed Avis wrote: But if what is meant is that you grant an unlimited licence as far as your own rights are concerned - but you don't make any representation about other rights that might apply to your contribution - then this must be made clear. That sounds like a good idea. Please provide a patch. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: I misunderstood your objection. My understanding of the current policy is that a contributor does permit OSMF to use a different (future) licence. That is the reason for the perpetual licence. OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too. So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to add third-party data released under anything less than fully-permissive terms, even if it happened to be compatible with the licence OSM uses at present. NB: I don't have a view on this at all and am not trying to influence policy. No, me neither. (Well I do have a view, which is that granting extra rights to a privileged body such as the OSMF is a bad idea, and we 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-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 18 November 2010 10:14, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too. So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to add third-party data released under anything less than fully-permissive terms, even if it happened to be compatible with the licence OSM uses at present. No. That's not the case and on this point the draft licence *is* clear enough in my view. Its important to read the existing draft as is, rather than recalling what earlier drafts said. The existing draft aims to allow: - the addition of data that the contributor themselves can licence - in this case the contributor grants a perpetual licence to OSMF to relicense it under whatever current licence is being used (subject to conditions that are being discussed - but free and open of some kind), you need the CT to license the data somehow, or OSMF won't know what they can do with it - addition of data licensed under some other licence which looks like (to the contributor) it is compatible with the OSMF's current licence - there is no need for the contributor to be sure about this, but OSMF makes it clear that this is what it would like - data of the first kind can be relicensed later, data of the second can only be relicensed by OSMF if a future licence is compatible with the data's original licence conditions - a judgment call OSMF may have to make if/when it does that relicensing exercise I'd prefer some way of saying I got this data from X, much as wikipedia does for image uploads. I realise there are various levels of disagreement as to whether this is the right policy. I really am a neutral (and I hope not unhelpful) observer trying to offer what skills I have to make this work right. No, me neither. (Well I do have a view, which is that granting extra rights to a privileged body such as the OSMF is a bad idea, and we 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. OK. I understand where you are coming from and thank you for keeping this focussed. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Consider this case: someone wants to use OpenStreetMap data augmented with POIs from a closed source in a routing application. This routing application is then used within the company for which it is built, for commercial purposes. Do the POIs need to be released under CC-BY-SA? It depends on whether the company needs permission to use the OSM data in their own routing program. Whatever program you use with OSM, the data will inevitably be mixed and interacted with data from other sources, even if that other data is just the program text or routing configuration. We normally accept that doing this kind of processing does not require additional permission from the copyright holder, otherwise nobody would be able to do anything by computer. But more than that, the licence text itself refers to 'distributing' the work, not just using it. If they wanted to make a combined map of OSM+POIs and give or sell it to others, then yes it must be under CC-BY-SA. If they just use it internally, that's 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 18 November 2010 10:19, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: That's what you say, and I hope it is true. But others claim different things; some say that even once the work such as a printed map has been produced and distributed under CC-BY-SA or even CC0 terms, it is still tainted somehow, such that some legal force field prevents you from freely tracing it or otherwise turning it into machine-readable form. If this definitely isn't the case then it would be good to see a definitive statement to that effect, preferably attached to the licence itself. I know it sucks to have to refute every canard that somebody somewhere comes up with about the bogeyman ODbL, but this is in my view one of the big problems with the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about what it permits you get four answers. One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as there wouldn't be further down the chain of derivation/copying) the extent to which ODbL is enforceable depends on what (if any) IP rights a particular jurisdiction recognises in the licensed work and how that jurisdiction treats them. I can tell you (because this is one of my fields of expertise) that treatment varies widely (you knew that almost certainly) which means that answers will vary across space. Some of this is also developing. It was only this year that a UK court recognised (new style) database copyright in football fixtures lists. That was by no means a foregone conclusion. Multiply that sort of uncertainty across the world and you will find it difficult to get straight answers. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Martijn van Exel wrote: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Consider this case: someone wants to use OpenStreetMap data augmented with POIs from a closed source in a routing application. This routing application is then used within the company for which it is built, for commercial purposes. Do the POIs need to be released under CC-BY-SA? The word 'may' implies they do not. May in this case means are permitted to, so in theory, yes they do need to be released. But, as ever, the coach-and-horses hole in CC-BY-SA means that if your routing application combines the POIs itself (i.e. on the client), you are free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply avoiding it by not publishing the combined work. That's a feature of CC-BY-SA which can be used for the scenario you describe. It's maybe not what we originally envisaged when CC-BY-SA was selected but it's not such a bad thing. There are things in the proposed cure that are much worse. It only applies if you deliver a combined OSM/proprietary file from the server. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751096.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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 18 November 2010 10:34, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In this case, where the content is from some third party and is currently compatible with ODbL but may not be compatible with some future license, it would be essential that detailed and accurate records of such contributions are maintained. Yes. Something like that would be necessary if you can't identify the original licence. Surely that is inevitable if (i) you want to be able to allow contributors to contribute data licensed CC-BY-SA or under some other licence (like many of the government licenses) and (ii) you want to be able to change the licence in the future. As I understand it (i) and (ii) are both desiderata. There would need to be a record of which licenses apply to each edit made by each contributor. And come the time of a future license change there would possibly be a purging of unsuitable content that would as problematic as the one currently proposed. Not quite. You would not need to seek anyone's permission to delete data, or indeed interact with contributors at all, except to allow the vote on the new licence. So it might be problematic, but in a different way. To me, this looks like a recipe for chaos. (shrug) maybe. I don't have a feel for the practicalities and its not really my call. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: this is in my view one of the big problems with the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about what it permits you get four answers. One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as there wouldn't be further down the chain of derivation/copying) the extent to which ODbL is enforceable depends on what (if any) IP rights a particular jurisdiction recognises in the licensed work and how that jurisdiction treats them. From my point of view, I think that is a feature, not a bug. The extent of copyright, database right and other laws is best decided by individual countries and it is IMHO misguided to try to override the compromise between public and private interests made by a particular society. However that's just opinion. More interesting is your remark about 'no contractual relationship' - which makes 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@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to add third-party data No. That's not the case and on this point the draft licence *is* clear enough in my view. Its important to read the existing draft as is, rather than recalling what earlier drafts said. The existing draft aims to allow: - the addition of data that the contributor themselves can licence - in this case the contributor grants a perpetual licence to OSMF to relicense it under whatever current licence is being used (subject to conditions that are being discussed - but free and open of some kind), you need the CT to license the data somehow, or OSMF won't know what they can do with it - addition of data licensed under some other licence which looks like (to the contributor) it is compatible with the OSMF's current licence - there is no need for the contributor to be sure about this, but OSMF makes it clear that this is what it would like That all makes sense but even in the revised 1.2 draft it is not implied by the language. The CTs ask you to grant an unlimited licence over the Contents, without any exemption from this requirement if some rights in the Contents are held by third parties. Since I cannot grant an unlimited licence to Contents derived from Ordnance Survey OpenData, I cannot agree to the CTs. See elsewhere on this thread where I suggest a clarified 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...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
80n wrote: You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply avoiding it by not publishing the combined work. The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print (something) in a book or journal so as to make it generally known: we pay $10 for every letter we publish. You certainly are making the combined work known, and insofar as print can be interpreted as displayed on a monitor (you'd have thought Apple would ship a dictionary on their Macs that was written some time in the last 50 years), it's spot on. Take the example at http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ : the combined work is OSM data (CC-BY-SA) and a map stylesheet. _But_ the map stylesheet does not have to be licensed as CC-BY-SA because the client (in this case, a Flash app) is doing the combining. That's a feature of CC-BY-SA which can be used for the scenario you describe. Yeah, I like features. Potlatch has about 300 features listed on trac. I might get round to fixing them one of these days. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751217.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] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 18 November 2010 10:59, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: That all makes sense but even in the revised 1.2 draft it is not implied by the language. The CTs ask you to grant an unlimited licence over the Contents, without any exemption from this requirement if some rights in the Contents are held by third parties. Since I cannot grant an unlimited licence to Contents derived from Ordnance Survey OpenData, I cannot agree to the CTs. Yes, indeed. This is a point I have made on numerous occasions already. I also understand that various proposed wording to update the CTs to take that into account has been proposed (by you, me and others) and I am sure its under consideration. The fact that no wording like that is there is almost certainly just a because its still in draft form. The LWG are, I am sure, well aware of the need to do something about the wording, but haven't had time to do so. See elsewhere on this thread where I suggest a clarified wording. Yes. I saw. I'm rather busy right now or I'd suggest something myself. I am somewhat reluctant to do too much suggesting on an open list since I am a lawyer and I'm not instructed by OSMF. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
- Original Message - From: Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2 On 17 November 2010 13:30, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added, and who will be able to agree to the CT's. That's a misunderstanding of the draft. A contributor may contribute any data that is presently compatible (as far as they can see). OSMF aren't obliged to deal with the situation if, later, that data is not then compatible, but that doesn't either affect the contrbutor or cause the contributor any difficulty. Its not their faulr if OSMF misuse data at a later stage. Lets say I have some data which has some restrictive licence, but I have satisfied myself that that licence is compatible with OSM's current licence. Are you saying that under the draft CT's: a) Its OK for me to add that data to OSM, even though I don't know whether any future licence may be compatible with the original data's licence; or are you saying that; b) I cant add the data as I don't know whether any future licence may be compatible with the original data's licence. I would prefer to see CT's such as (b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we will delete that data temporarily or permanently. Is exactly what you don't want because its a *promise* by OSMF to do something if there is a suspicion. I doubt you'd want to tie OSMF's hands in that way. Actually that is exactly what I did want. In that if data was added which has an original licence which is incompatible with any future licence chosen by OSMF, then I think the moral and legal responsibility is that the data should be removed. They might want to take legal advice, or approach If they take legal advice and the advice is the data is compatible then I see no problem the rights holder or do something else, perhaps even challenge the If they approach the rights holder, and the rights holder says its OK to continue having the data in OSM , then I see no problem rights holder over it (as wikipedia has done with the national portrait gallery). The draft at the moment permits OSMF to do something but doesn't require them to. Its just the idea that OSM may change the licence, and then leave data in the database which is based on a source which is no longer compatible with the new licence, which concerns me. David -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply avoiding it by not publishing the combined work. The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print (something) in a book or journal so as to make it generally known: we pay $10 for every letter we publish. You certainly are making the combined work known, and insofar as print can be interpreted as displayed on a monitor (you'd have thought Apple would ship a dictionary on their Macs that was written some time in the last 50 years), it's spot on. Take the example at http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ : the combined work is OSM data (CC-BY-SA) and a map stylesheet. _But_ the map stylesheet does not have to be licensed as CC-BY-SA because the client (in this case, a Flash app) is doing the combining. I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It looks perfectly fine to me. Perhaps a better example would be a mashup of POIs on an OSM map. The POIs are not tainted by the OSM license if the combination is done on the client. If the combination was done on the server and published then yes they become tainted. It's not great that there is such a distinction but it's a clear and consistent rule and gives users of the content some options without driving a coach and horses through the license. I don't see what your problem is with this. That's a feature of CC-BY-SA which can be used for the scenario you describe. Yeah, I like features. Potlatch has about 300 features listed on trac. I might get round to fixing them one of these days. I used the word feature deliberately and in the same sense that you did. Perhaps it would be better to say that it's a characteristic of CC-BY-SA. Certainly not an intentional one, but not one that anyone feels a desperate need to fix. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
On 11/18/2010 10:25 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Whatever program you use with OSM, the data will inevitably be mixed and interacted with data from other sources, even if that other data is just the program text I think that loaded data is not generally regard as being combined with the program code for copyright purposes. You don't need special permission to load a BY-SA image into PhotoiShop or a BY-SA text intro Word, for example. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/18/2010 10:19 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myersr...@... writes: Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under some interpretations. It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution requirement is more reasonable.) You can produce CC-licensed work from ODbL/DbCL data. That's what you say, and I hope it is true. But others claim different things; It is true. If you have any reason to believe that it isn't, do ask on odc-discuss, where you will receive a more authoritative answer than I can give: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss I'd personally regard it as a disaster if copyleft works couldn't be produced from ODbL data. some say that even once the work such as a printed map has been produced and distributed under CC-BY-SA or even CC0 terms, it is still tainted somehow, such that some legal force field prevents you from freely tracing it or otherwise turning it into machine-readable form. That is a kind of mass hysterical folk misunderstanding of the requirement to make derived databases available. If someone tries to launder or teleport ODbL data using produced works, they should and will fail. Derived Databases and Produced Works are different enough conceptually that this shouldn't be a problem in practice. I've discussed some of this on odc-discuss so I really do recommend looking at the archives there. If this definitely isn't the case then it would be good to see a definitive statement to that effect, preferably attached to the licence itself. I think that's excessive. The licence isn't meant to be its own educational materials or to contain its own FUD. I do think the ODbL FAQ needs extending though. I know it sucks to have to refute every canard that somebody somewhere comes up with about the bogeyman ODbL, but this is in my view one of the big problems with the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about what it permits you get four answers. I've seen conversations with similar levels of fear, uncertainty and doubt about the GPL, the FDL and various CC licences over the years. I don't believe the ODbL is worse than BY-SA or the GPL in terms of readability and of clarity of intent. The formatting is certainly better than BY-SA 2.0 unported. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
80n wrote: I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It looks perfectly fine to me. Depends what you mean by problem. If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically as in the geowiki.com example, and delivering it via a Flash applet) and Scenario B (applying styles manually in, say, Illustrator, and delivering it as a JPEG), it strikes me as silly that the scope of CC-BY-SA differs when the end result - pixels on a screen - is the same for the user. If I were to contrast what I actually _do_ with map data (OS, not OSM), which is to take Scenario B (takes approximately 15 minutes) and then continue by generalising, labelling, dropping in pull-outs, and so on (takes about four whole evenings and a bunch of knowledge, skill and personal judgement, none of which is at all connected to OSM), than I'd say that CC-BY-SA's scope here crosses the line from silly to batshit insane. So if by are you saying this is a problem? you mean do you think this loophole should be closed?, no, I don't. I simply think it renders CC-BY-SA an ever more ridiculous licence for OSM. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751623.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] Best license for future tiles?
Rob Myers r...@... writes: It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution requirement is more reasonable.) If someone tries to launder or teleport ODbL data using produced works, they should and will fail. Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not possible to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or printed maps from the ODbL data? Or do you just mean that trying to trace from 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: (*) But is this really the policy wanted? So an individual contributor has no choice - they have to grant an unlimited licence and suck up any future licence changes. But a third party can veto licence changes - or insist on data deletion, which is more or less the same thing. Why the difference in treatment? If you publish your data under, say CC-BY, and then contribute it to OSM under the third-party clause then you can avoid granting an unlimited license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It looks perfectly fine to me. Depends what you mean by problem. If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically as in the geowiki.com example, and delivering it via a Flash applet) and Scenario B (applying styles manually in, say, Illustrator, and delivering it as a JPEG), it strikes me as silly that the scope of CC-BY-SA differs when the end result - pixels on a screen - is the same for the user. If I were to contrast what I actually _do_ with map data (OS, not OSM), which is to take Scenario B (takes approximately 15 minutes) and then continue by generalising, labelling, dropping in pull-outs, and so on (takes about four whole evenings and a bunch of knowledge, skill and personal judgement, none of which is at all connected to OSM), than I'd say that CC-BY-SA's scope here crosses the line from silly to batshit insane. There's a disconnect in your argument. Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal judgement and not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant. The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That end product benefits from one of it's inputs (OSM content) and the rules for using that is that you should share alike and provide attribution. Neither of which subtract from or devalue your knowledge, skill and personal judgement. They are still yours to re-use in making another map. It's simple enough to me. If you don't like the rules then start with a different base map. So if by are you saying this is a problem? you mean do you think this loophole should be closed?, no, I don't. I simply think it renders CC-BY-SA an ever more ridiculous licence for OSM. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751623.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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
80n wrote: There's a disconnect in your argument. No, there isn't, because: Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal judgement are not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant. The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That end product benefits from one of it's inputs (OSM content) and the rules for using that is that you should share alike and provide attribution. is not consistently true. The end product of generalisation, label placement etc. (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in a dynamically rendered Flash map is not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. Therefore: If the Illustrator map is published, the attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be trivially reverse-engineered and distributed under CC-BY-SA. If the dynamic Flash map is published, the attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be even more trivially reverse-engineered, but cannot be distributed under CC-BY-SA. In other words: CC-BY-SA, when applied to OSM, is entirely arbitrary (and I would contend unfair) in defining what knowledge, skill and personal judgement falls under the share-alike clause. Why do you think I started Potlatch 2 by writing a dynamic Flash rendering engine? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751761.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] Best license for future tiles?
Hi, On 11/18/10 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (I believe that the reasonably calculated in 4.3 imposes a downstream requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you have not reasonably calculated that the attribution will be shown to any Person that views, accesses [etc.]... the Produced Work. At least one person disagrees with me here. :) ) And he's watching. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3). Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'. That's not exactly the argument. You can reverse-engineer the produced map tiles. But one interpretation of the ODbL (which I find to be persuasive) is that any significant extract of data which you obtained from such reverse-engineering would be ODbL, to the extent that a) it's copyrightable; b) it's protected by database rights; or c) you agreed to the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Rob Myers r...@... writes: It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not the copyright on it hasn't magically vanished. Right. But if the music publisher had given permission (perhaps by some tortuously worded licence document) to release those short clips under CC-BY then you would be within your rights to put them together into a longer work. Moreover, a better analogy is that you send *one* friend the entire Lady Gaga song, in a form (maybe a waveform video) which makes it difficult, but not impossible, to extract the underlying song. An even better analogy would be a library released under the LGPL. You are allowed to release the library only under the LGPL, but a binary which contains the library does not have to be under LGPL. The only free license which the LGPL is compatible with is the GPL, and it's only compatible with that because it's *explicitly* compatible with it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Anthony o...@... writes: One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say* you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY. To the extent that you are allowed to offer a license on a Produced Work, that license only applies to *your contribution* to the Produced Work. It does not apply to the preexisting material. The license you have for the preexisting material, i.e. the Database, is given by the original Licensor of the database, and is ODbL, not CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or anything else. Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say 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 mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/18/2010 05:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myersr...@... writes: We can produce a CC licenced set of map tiles from ODbL data. But we cannot use those to make a Lady Gaga score or the original ODbL database. Actually, you can use them to produce a Lady Gaga score, if you somehow managed to do so independently without ever hearing her music before. That Magic aside, the likelihood of a substantial portion of the precise structure and content of the OSM database being independently created is close enough to zero that this is unlikely to be a concern. would be independent creation. It would, of course, require that nobody had added bits of Gaga-music to the OSM database without prior permission from the record company. If we do, the original rights still apply to the recreated work. CC licencing is not a way of circumventing that. The point is this. The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence in the work. Clearly, Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot. that applies to all copyright interest in the work and not selectively to just the pictorial part of it (even if that concept existed). If you follow the terms of the licence, you are not infringing copyright. You are not infringing the copyright on the produced work, no. If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's exactly the same situation. The original OS master database is copyrighted. It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected to apply directly to derived works. Perhaps you are to some extent 'recreating' it by tracing from the Street View tiles, but that doesn't matter; you have a copyright licence from the Ordnance Survey to use those tiles, so as long as you don't cheat by looking at the original database, you can trace and derive whatever you like from them as long as you stay within the copyright licence granted. But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the precise structure and numbers in the database. What would prevent us from using an ARR map tile to magically recreate the original ODbL database? If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the copyright holder of that printed map. On the other hand, if I had a licence (from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute them under certain terms, I would be able to do that. And if the proprietary licence said you can do what you like with derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original, how would that be different from the ODbL? If we look at the licencing of My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts, which licenced individual track elements CC but not the original compiled work, that's probably closer. Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an entirely separate issue. Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and if you do things with just the extract you received then you are covered by the licence you received with that extract. Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally recreated in this scenario? I don't think it will be possible to accidentally reverse engineer the DB, and if you intentionally reverse engineer it, you cannot claim independent creation. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say 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. So ask on odc-discuss. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an entirely separate issue. Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's copyright without permission. So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work. since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules) Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable. If I write a score, and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still copyrighted by the original author. Clean room rules involve using only uncopyrightable factual data. There are arguments on both sides as to whether or not tracing a map constitutes copying only uncopyrightable facts (personally I lean strongly toward the side that says it does, but I wouldn't be willing to bet my business on that without receiving substantial legal advice). In any case, clean room rules don't apply to database rights. So if you live in a jurisdiction with database rights, you can pretty much throw away that argument. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say 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. So ask on odc-discuss. And then explain it to us here. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: However, this part remains: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright... As Ben has pointed out, this section retains the assumption made previously: that you have the right to grant these rights. Along with other points that I have already pointed out, I'll note that the grant is with respect to Your Contents, not with respect to Other People's Contents. Yes, but if Your Contents are partly derived from Other People's Stuff, so that Other People hold some rights in them too... Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The Work is derived from Your Contents and Their Contents. Would a definition of Your Contents help clarify that? There are multiple copyrights on a derivative work. Each author's copyright extends only to his original material, and not to the material contributed by others. At any rate it's not crystal clear, and it needs to be. I agree that if it's not crystal clear to you, that this situation should be fixed. But it is crystal clear to me, so I'm not really sure how to fix it. I gave some suggested text earlier, but didn't receive any comment on whether or not that would be sufficient to clarify it. Maybe this is just a jurisdictional issue? I'm going to quote from the US Code, Title 17, Section 103. Someone please let me know if this principle is not accepted in other jurisdictions: 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Rob Myers r...@... writes: The point is this. The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence in the work. Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot. Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you received (in this case a printed map, say). That is what I want to establish. And it covers all of the copyright for that particular work, not just a subset so that you're granted a licence to the pictures but not the words. It doesn't, obviously, cover anything not contained in that work. So it couldn't possibly include the exact tags used in a landuse=brownfield area - just the shape of the area and the fact that it is brown. If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's exactly the same situation. The original OS master database is copyrighted. It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected to apply directly to derived works. Could you clarify what you mean here? The OpenData release does not include any access to the original database. I have never seen the OS's master database or the terms under which it is licensed; as far as I am concerned the Street View tiles are just some image files released under a permissive licence. If I trace from them and make a derived work, I need to stay within the licence granted - but I need not care at all what the terms are of the original DB. But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the precise structure and numbers in the database. Ah, no I don't mean the precise numbers, obviously it would be a practical impossibility to recreate the exact database and if somebody did that you would suspect that they had been peeking at the original DB all along. I just mean the subset of the information that is recoverable from the tiles. If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the copyright holder of that printed map. On the other hand, if I had a licence (from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute them under certain terms, I would be able to do that. And if the proprietary licence said you can do what you like with derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original, how would that be different from the ODbL? Perhaps it wouldn't be different, but that is not what happens here. You don't receive the map tiles under ODbL. You receive them under CC-BY, shall we say, without additional restrictions. If that is the case, then you can make derivatives such as tracing and distribute them under the licence terms you received. Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and if you do things with just the extract you received then you are covered by the licence you received with that extract. Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally recreated in this scenario? I am only referring to tracing from the map tiles themselves. Perhaps you are right that it would be practically impossible to recreate the original database from that - in which case we come to the same conclusion, albeit from different premises: that the tiles can be distributed under CC-BY without 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://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
Anthony o...@... writes: Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The Work is derived from Your Contents and Their Contents. Would a definition of Your Contents help clarify that? Yes, it would - although I think that the approach I proposed of 'section A - rights you hold' and 'section B - rights held by others' would be even clearer. The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents' would effectively 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Anthony o...@... writes: Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's copyright without permission. Correct! So it matters whether the tiles are produced by OSMF itself or by a third party. So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work. ...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, although OSMF itself has the power to do so because of the special rights granted by the contributor terms. since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules) Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable. If I write a score, and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still copyrighted by the original author. Absolutely! I am not disputing that at all. I am saying that if you write a score, and then *with your permission and authorization* somebody distributes a recording of it under CC-BY or other permissive licence, then a person receiving it can exercise the rights granted by the licence to turn it back into the original score. In any case, clean room rules don't apply to database rights. So if you live in a jurisdiction with database rights, you can pretty much throw away that argument. Yes, 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally recreated in this scenario? I don't think it will be possible to accidentally reverse engineer the DB, and if you intentionally reverse engineer it, you cannot claim independent creation. OK, imagine the following; Suppose that some time from now, OSM has moved to ODBL - and a group has forked OSM using the last CC-BY-SA planet file - for the sake of argument call it OSM-CC. The original OSM project, with the database under ODBL still releases its map tiles on its main website under CC-BY-SA. Presumably, the OSM-CC project would be well within their rights to use the OSM created map tiles as a background layer in JOSM / Potlatch etc. to allow users to trace map data. The data created is derived from the CC-BY-SA tiles - and so must therefore also be under a CC-BY-SA licence. Therefore it's compatible with the OSM-CC project. With sufficient resources, the OSM-CC project could in theory create a substantially similar database to that of the main OSM project - although it's extremely unlikely to be identical. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Hi, On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'. They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work. When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume that it doesn't contain anyone else's work under conditions different from those in the license I was given, unless I'm told so. So I should be able to excercise my right to reverse engineer the POIs names and positions and the streets graph represented by the bitmaps and distribute the result under a license compatible with the CC license. So it should be entirely possible to reproduce most of planet.osm or at least the useful part of it (so e.g. not the object IDs and not their order) which would not be covered by database rights or copyright of OSMF. For example I could produce z30 tiles with a public domain mapnik stylesheet and my friend could run a program to produce a .osm file taking the tileset and the stylesheet as input. If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work, for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady Gaga song then record that, the work that you have reverse engineered still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced work to make it. Is there any known case that would show that this is how copyright works? I'm no lawyer, but copyright is mostly reasonable to me whereas what you explain would make it unreasonable. For example say I'm using the CC-BY-SA photographs from flickr to create a great photo wall, placing the pictures in alphabetical order. How do I know that I'm not recreating a differently licensed work by somebody else, from which all the pictures were cut out? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Martin, M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: But a map is (this might have to be looked at for the individual case) not only a work but can constitute a database at the same time. If you are able to reconstruct a database with substantial parts of the original database by re-engineering if from the map, you must admit that the database somehow still was in the map. Otherwise you could simply create a SVG-Map, publish it under PD, recompile the db from the svg and you would have circumvented the license. The first version of ODbL hat an explicit clause about reverse engineering, saying that if you reverse engineer a produced work the resulting DB will fall under ODbL. That has been scrapped because lawyers said that this was implicit - i.e. you *can* indeed have a produced work that is, say, PD, but if you use that to re-create the database from which it was made, that database is protected by database right once again and you need a license to use it. Otherwise, only the most obscure works (certainly not a printed map) could fall under the Produced Works rule. 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] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The At least in the case of Nearmap, they hold rights in Your Contents too: You will own all Derived Works that you create. However, you may only distribute Derived Works to others on the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence... Maybe rights isn't the right word, but they impose conditions on what you can do with Your Contents. There are multiple copyrights on a derivative work. Each author's copyright extends only to his original material, and not to the material contributed by others. Yeah, but copyright and licensing are two quite separate issues. I agree that if it's not crystal clear to you, that this situation should be fixed. But it is crystal clear to me, so I'm not really sure how to fix it. It's quite clear what the CTs say to me, and it's wrong. :) Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's copyright without permission. Correct! So it matters whether the tiles are produced by OSMF itself or by a third party. Agreed. So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work. ...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, although OSMF itself has the power to do so because of the special rights granted by the contributor terms. Well, depends on what you mean by that. MapQuest certainly can (physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the bottom of the screen saying this map tile is released under CC-BY-SA. And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing so. Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing so. Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing (etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA. On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA, if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL. since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules) Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable. If I write a score, and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still copyrighted by the original author. Absolutely! I am not disputing that at all. I am saying that if you write a score, and then *with your permission and authorization* somebody distributes a recording of it under CC-BY or other permissive licence, then a person receiving it can exercise the rights granted by the licence to turn it back into the original score. You are merging two separate events into one when you talk about distributing a recording under CC-BY, distributing a recording, and licensing the recording under CC-BY. The ODbL explicitly allows the former. But it is actually silent about the latter. (It says that you can't sublicense the score under CC-BY, but it says nothing about whether or not you can license the recording under CC-BY.) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... writes: The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents' would effectively be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other People's Contents'. Correct. Of course, even if you're not breaching a contract by intentionally bulk-uploading data which is incompatible with the current license, that doesn't mean you can't be blocked and/or have your edits reverted for doing so. That seems like the better place to address the issue anyway. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
