Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
The distinction 80n makes is the fundamental one to me and where the problems lie. There are two entities here that need to be considered separately. 1) The contributors, their contributions, and the applicable licence. 2) OSMF and the general running of OSM, where not related to licensing of data. I absolutely agree that OSMF needs freedom to change things in the future and it would be wrong if a minor contributor from today prevented a change in ten years after they'd left. On this I agree with Frederik. However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. The contributors make their data available on particular terms, and wish to understand them. Giving an indeterminate body (the future contributors) the power to change those terms means we can never know the details of the licence that our data will be licensed under. It is not far short of a straight assignment as the contributor loses control. I think the two issues need separating, with the ability to change the licence remaining solely in the hands of the contributor of each bit of data, and the running of OSMF in the hands of active people at the time. Kevin Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 19:24:29 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Cc: pec...@gmail.compec...@gmail.com; Open Street Map mailing listt...@openstreetmap.org; Serge Wroclawskiemac...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Hi, On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. Maybe it is just a problem with concepts and wording. Where you say license, I think CT: The contributors grant OSMF the right to use their data under specific rules. These rules can never be changed without their consent, and it would be wrong (like you say above) to try and retroactively change these rules. These rules include the right for OSMF to redistribute the data under certain licenses, the choice of which must conform to a set of criteria which are defined *in advance* by the contributor and are *not modifiable*. So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. Maybe it is just a problem with concepts and wording. Where you say license, I think CT: The contributors grant OSMF the right to use their data under specific rules. These rules can never be changed without their consent, and it would be wrong (like you say above) to try and retroactively change these rules. These rules include the right for OSMF to redistribute the data under certain licenses, the choice of which must conform to a set of criteria which are defined *in advance* by the contributor and are *not modifiable*. So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Actual active contributors are already a small minority of all contributors, and will inevitably become a smaller and smaller minority as time goes on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
I agree, but this is still a great deal of freedom. A PD licence would be free and open, but is a very different beast to ODBL. There is therefore the scope to very significantly alter the license without the direct agreement of a contributor to the specific terms. K Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:25:23 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag 80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. Bye Frederik ___ 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] Unsetting CT flag
Hi all, thanks for the replies. I'll reply to specific, pertinent bits. 2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC Thanks. (Might be worth showing this in the GUI.) If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now. Wrong. You're not operating in a totally difference licensing mode, the work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover. The CTs have lots of other implications which have been well discussed, so I won't repeat them here. My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately. My issues with the CTs are not philosophical or aesthetic, but purely practical and contractual. In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the form. Thanks, that answers my question. In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM, Too many Steves - I haven't been to an SoTM. I am a nice guy though, really. :) The problem is by agreeing to the CT Steve has breached his contract with Nearmap, which in turn is a breach of CT terms so legally he had no right to agree to the CTs in the first place. Thanks. Exactly what I was trying to say, but I failed. We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and flag those changesets that are incompatible individually. Interesting. (I won't comment further here.) I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI. Yes. Well, that's the question I'm asking myself. I have no idea. August is a while ago. Perhaps I skim read the text and thought ODbL, sure, without knowing the implications of what I was doing - breaching the terms of my Nearmap user licence. Could I point out that Wikipedia tells you *every single time you edit* exactly what licence you're contributing under. Regarding data he's entered which is licensed by a third party, the third party needs to make the data available to OSM in a way that works with OSM's chosen license model, or else the data needs to be removed from OSM. or else the CTs need to be made compatible with third party data sources in general. (Unclear if license model includes CTs.) And unlike those other organizations, you have direct ability not only to accept or not accept the terms, but also to vote for the organization's leadership, which AFAIK, isn't an option for Google users. Also to help shape those terms. Think long-term! This is not a clause aimed at next year. The CTs are broken now, not next year, nor long-term. ... because he has subsequently found out that he has no legal right to give that data to OSMF, and has infact commited an offence himself. Not an offence - this is contract law, not criminal law. I think one of these has/will happen(ed): - I have unwittingly violated Nearmap's terms of use (by handing over rights which I said I wouldn't do) - I have violated OSMF's contributor terms (by handing over rights I don't have) no way to unset the flag and no way to register a new account with original contributor terms :( What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad. So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest respect for the LWG, who are acting in good faith, this strikes me as dumb. As soon as the first problems with the CTs 1.0 were realised, it should have been repealed, sent back for further analysis, then version 1.1 brought out. Leaving a broken 1.0 version in place, and giving no opt-out mechanism is terrible form. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. You would agree, however, that OSMF could change the license to one that is not share-alike? If you read the link I referenced about carpetbagging of UK mutual building societies, then you'll appreciate that the criteria for an active contributor is way to weak to be much of an impediment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license Free according to whom? Open according to whom? * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor As was pointed out in another thread, nothing stops OSMF from selectively locking out certain individuals so that they cannot remain active contributors. To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: To change the CT, all they have to do is 1) require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would not have made an edit in the last 3 months so they would be ineligible for voting. I think that 3 would have to be 10, though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad. So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest respect for the LWG, who are acting in good faith, this strikes me as dumb. As soon as the first problems with the CTs 1.0 were realised, it should have been repealed, sent back for further analysis, then version 1.1 brought out. Leaving a broken 1.0 version in place, and giving no opt-out mechanism is terrible form. Exactly. I've said this previously on this list. Until the CTs are finalised and all users are forced to agree or be told that they are no longer welcome, the CTs should not be mandatory for new users. When I get the time, I'll start looking into the current CC BY-SA osm forks and see if they have open development that I could help out with. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbhttp://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb and currently released 1.0 text http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs. Mike At 07:39 PM 5/12/2010, Mike Collinson wrote: Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 20:44, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed Cool. Thanks for the info. it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb and currently released 1.0 text http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs. Thanks. Some suggestions - if you are interested: - a contributor natural person should probably read a natural person - In 4: At Your or the copyright holder’s option should probably have copyright owner's for consistency. - There's an odd or more at the end of clause 5 which I cannot account for. - do you want to delete , except as provided above in Section 1, from clause 6.1 since section 1 provides no warranty? - do you want to change whether written or oral to whether written, oral or otherwise in 7? It may be that any agreement was implied and therefore not written or oral. - do you want to qualify within 3 weeks in clause 3? Such as within 3 weeks of being notified of the vote? Query: how big is the OSMF membership? Would resolution of the members of OSMF not be better since a resolution is a well defined term with rules on how one is conducted, its quorum and so on, whereas a vote might not be understood to be that. This could all be handled elsewhere so it may not be a worry. Style (really feel free to ignore this): I'd feel happier if the heading style was consistent. Me, I like headings in contracts I draft. They make them easier to read. Both rights granted and miscellaneous could be put in the same style as Limitation of Liability. You might also want to global replace You with you except where grammar requires you. Definitions don't _have_ to have initial capital letters, and it makes the contract look less stilted (in my personal opinion). NB: usual disclaimer, though I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice, but merely something written during a rest from playing minecraft. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can submit such data without automatically being in violation of the third party's rights? Well, if a contributor contributes data over which there is some IP right, then that may constitute a form of secondary infringement by the contributor. There's no way to avoid this. Putting a contractual provision requiring the contributor to warrant compliance, won't stop them being liable if they make a mistake (although it might make them more careful). I doubt that imposing a duty on OSMF to remove any data which they discover to be unlawful would help (there's still a high chance of some form of secondary infringement). Imposing a duty to remove any data which would be unlawful for OSMF to distribute whether OSMF knows or not (in other words transferring the warranty to OSMF) would impose an serious burden on OSMF to guard contributors from their own mistakes. It could be done, but it would require serious thought. So, I think your objection has substance, but it is directed at the wrong thing. (I have the same doubt about not guaranteeing compatibility with future OSM licenses) Well, that's an impossibility (its hard enough to check compatibility with existing licenses). If OSMF agrees to make reasonable efforts to remove offending data, that should be enough to absolve any contributor of secondary liability. We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others may be enough to do the trick. Some relatively modest statement such as and we will do our best to make sure that we do or words to that effect would be even better. Bear in mind that secondary liability requires something like authorisation or joint infringement. Neither of those is likely where a contributor, in good faith, submits data on the basis that OSMF does not wish to violate IP rights. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can submit such data without automatically being in violation of the third party's rights? Well, if a contributor contributes data over which there is some IP right, then that may constitute a form of secondary infringement by the contributor. There's no way to avoid this. Putting a contractual provision requiring the contributor to warrant compliance, won't stop them being liable if they make a mistake (although it might make them more careful). I doubt that imposing a duty on OSMF to remove any data which they discover to be unlawful would help (there's still a high chance of some form of secondary infringement). Imposing a duty to remove any data which would be unlawful for OSMF to distribute whether OSMF knows or not (in other words transferring the warranty to OSMF) would impose an serious burden on OSMF to guard contributors from their own mistakes. It could be done, but it would require serious thought. So, I think your objection has substance, but it is directed at the wrong thing. Thanks for the explanation. Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. (I have the same doubt about not guaranteeing compatibility with future OSM licenses) Well, that's an impossibility (its hard enough to check compatibility with existing licenses). If OSMF agrees to make reasonable efforts to remove offending data, that should be enough to absolve any contributor of secondary liability. We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others may be enough to do the trick. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the explanation. Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an No. Its purpose is to expressly state that the contributor does not guarantee to OSMF that it would be lawful for OSMF to licence the data. Earlier versions asked the contributor to give a warranty that the contribution was free of others' IP rights. My understanding is that that was felt to be unfair to contributors (who are after all not lawyers). What it does not do is prevent the contributor from being liable to third parties in some way. *That* would be difficult to do since its not in OSMF's power to absolve the contributor from any liability they might have. So the existing state of affairs is: - contributors contribute at their own risk, if the act of contributing is itself an infringement, that's their problem - OSMF assumes any risk of publication of that data and cannot sue a contributor if they wrongly contribute data which later turns out to be incompatible with one or more of OSMF's licences - whether a contributor could be liable for some kind of secondary liability is very difficult to say since IP laws vary worldwide and so do third party licenses, my sense is that the risk is small since the wording is not easily compatible with the idea of authorisation In particular the you do not need to guarantee... looks to me to count against authorisation. If the contributor did guarantee that would look more like authorising OSMF to do what it should not do. As I said, some reasonable obligation on OSMF to try to avoid IP violations might do the trick. But you want to be careful about imposing too onerous a duty on OSMF. effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell I'm not sure what you mean by terminating. Breach of contract does not ordinarily terminate the contract. Even a fundamental breach doesn't necessarily do so. a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. No. That isn't how English contract law works. The current wording is intended to imply (sure its not express, but the goal is fairly short wording I understand it) that OSMF doesn't have any obligations to relicense the data if it would be unlawful. That's what 1(b) does. 1(a) does a different job. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? I think it would be an enormous stretch for any IP owner to try to show secondary liability on the contributor in that case. Its something that could be nailed down even further of course. If I was drafting the contributor terms with certainty (rather than brevity) in mind, they'd be much much longer and there'd be no doubt in anyone's mind what they did - that is in the mind's of those who bother to read contracts and that is the problem. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 4. Data Imports Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. Please Assume Good Faith. Also remember that the LWG meets once a week. And that they do read this list. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 4. Data Imports Importer in that context sits better than mapper. The person who imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has always been the case. The import guidelines strongly advise: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines Imports like BP service stations Australia are a problem, because the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or ANY future license. Your remark of LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it. doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been doing. Kind regards Grant LWG member. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an No. Its purpose is to expressly state that the contributor does not guarantee to OSMF that it would be lawful for OSMF to licence the data. Earlier versions asked the contributor to give a warranty that the contribution was free of others' IP rights. My understanding is that that was felt to be unfair to contributors (who are after all not lawyers). Ah, I guess this makes sense although it didn't compute for me because if it's difficult for the contributor to guarantee that the license is compatible then it's even more difficult for OSMF who won't even know the origin of the data. (So if some data ends up being licensed by OSMF it'll be difficult to point to the basis on which it was decided to be ok (other than optimism). But from your explanation I understand that the OSMF is most likely to receive the blame for distribution of the content that is against the license given by the original author) What it does not do is prevent the contributor from being liable to third parties in some way. *That* would be difficult to do since its not in OSMF's power to absolve the contributor from any liability they might have. Of course. So the existing state of affairs is: - contributors contribute at their own risk, if the act of contributing is itself an infringement, that's their problem - OSMF assumes any risk of publication of that data and cannot sue a contributor if they wrongly contribute data which later turns out to be incompatible with one or more of OSMF's licences - whether a contributor could be liable for some kind of secondary liability is very difficult to say since IP laws vary worldwide and so do third party licenses, my sense is that the risk is small since the wording is not easily compatible with the idea of authorisation In particular the you do not need to guarantee... looks to me to count against authorisation. If the contributor did guarantee that would look more like authorising OSMF to do what it should not do. As I said, some reasonable obligation on OSMF to try to avoid IP violations might do the trick. But you want to be careful about imposing too onerous a duty on OSMF. Yes, but you also want someone to be on that duty in the end (or maybe that's not needed, I don't know). effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. Ah that's not what I mean. Just that that sentence to me initally read as we allow you to contribute any data (possibly despite what others say), although we may remove it, but I see this is just me. I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell I'm not sure what you mean by terminating. Breach of contract does not ordinarily terminate the contract. Even a fundamental breach doesn't necessarily do so. You're right, I now see that there's nothing about termination in the document. a contributor our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day. No. That isn't how English contract law works. The current wording is intended to imply (sure its not express, but the goal is fairly short wording I understand it) that OSMF doesn't have any obligations to relicense the data if it would be unlawful. That's what 1(b) does. 1(a) does a different job. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? I think it would be an enormous stretch for any IP owner to try to show secondary liability on the contributor in that case. Its something that could be nailed down even further of course. If I was drafting the contributor terms with certainty (rather than brevity) in mind, they'd be much much longer and there'd be no doubt in anyone's mind what they did - that is in the mind's of those who bother to read contracts and that is the problem. So the answer is that most likely the OSMF may be liable. I'm interested in this because I have submitted data collected by other people and now they may grant me an ODbL license on it (in addition to CC-By-SA) so that I can accept the contributor terms (and in the
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Rob I'm not assuming anything. But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM community) don't have an handle on imports in any respect. This is mainly due to a rather laisser faire approach in the past, and simply that getting correct and formal approval for an import is, both for the donor and the importer, a lot of work (and more so in the future with a rather complex license on the OSM side of things). Looking forward, I don't see anyway around a more strict regime. Clearly that will put more burden on the OSMF and make imports less attractive, but I can't say that that is a bad thing. Simon - Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. Please Assume Good Faith. Also remember that the LWG meets once a week. And that they do read this list. - Rob. ___ 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 phrase in section 2
Grant There's a lot of data out there that has licenses that at least superficially may seem to be compatible with the OSM license. Using such data sources is very attractive to some mappers, for a large number of reasons, not the least that it's simply a lot less work than going out and mapping stuff yourself. Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with some degree of certainty is just a joke. And as I pointed out previously, getting formal authorization tends to be so much work, that it doesn't even happen in cases where the proper contacts are there. I know you've been doing work on the Import Catalogue and I hope you realize that it at least for the regions where I have some knowledge it is missing a quite lot of stuff, in fact it more like the tip of an iceberg. Since there's nothing particularly special about where I live, I have to assume it that it's going to be similar elsewhere. Luckily most of it is tracing from orthophotos, but I just noticed it's missing a recent import of 30'000 public transport stops (don't panic, the license is probably ok (see above) and I'll ask the importers to add it to the list). Simon - Original Message - From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:43 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 4. Data Imports Importer in that context sits better than mapper. The person who imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has always been the case. The import guidelines strongly advise: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines Imports like BP service stations Australia are a problem, because the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or ANY future license. Your remark of LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it. doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been doing. Kind regards Grant LWG member. ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 00:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Mike insection 4 4. At Your or the copyright holder's option, probably should be You not Your David - Original Message - From: Mike Collinson To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb and currently released 1.0 text http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs. Mike At 07:39 PM 5/12/2010, Mike Collinson wrote: Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.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 -- ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false statement being made repeatedly and you don't bother to ask the person to retract their comment and to refrain from pushing the same false statements in future. Instead you choose to make emotive statements trying to belittle those that would like to see a lot more honesty and transparency on the license debacle. You have just proven Steve Bennett point perfectly: I don't know how to have constructive discussions on the topic though - most seem to devolve fairly rapidly. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false statement being made repeatedly and you don't bother to ask the person to retract their comment and to refrain from pushing the same false statements in future. Instead you choose to make emotive statements trying to belittle those that would like to see a lot more honesty and transparency on the license debacle. I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and on with vexatious claims. What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you point them out? List archive links prefered. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Simon Poole wrote: Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with some degree of certainty is just a joke. Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a small number of licences. It isn't beyond the skills of the community (and the professional hired help that OSMF is able to arrange) to say whether these few licences are compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of future mappers. In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5813959.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] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Simon, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote: I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of free license, but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. I.e. he said he was afraid that somehow the PDists had achieved something (why he wrote all over again I don't know). My point is that the license that is now on the table, ODbL, is not a PD license. Anyone who would like OSM to be a PD project has not achieved something. The Contributor Terms provide a way for future generations of PDists, Share-Alike-Ists and whatnot in OSM to take the project's fate in their hands, battle it out, discuss it, whatever. This is good; it is not a win for anyone on any side in the license debate. (The best thing is that nobody loses either.) I reject outright the claim that the Contributor Terms effectively change the license. They leave a door open for future improvements, for an adaptation to changed circumstances or a changed mood in the community. But that is just a chance for change, not a change in itself, and any future change is possible only under strict rules. If you take an extremely individualist view then you will say: This is my data, I have contributed it, and I want to have every say in how it is used. This is not practical; you will always have to grant broad, general rights about your contribution to the project or downstream users. This is what happens today where you choose a license. In the future we expect you to not choose one particular license, but instead allow OSMF, together with the active project members of OSM, to choose a suitable license within certain constraints. In my eyes, this is not much different from the license upgrade clause in ODbL itself, only that the decision will in the hands of the future project, rather than in the hands of an elect few writers of the next license version. I think that it is morally very questionable to try and pre-emptively override a future 2/3 majority of active people in OSM. Those will be the people who shape, who maintain, who advance OSM, and they should have every freedom to decide what their project does; when we tell them that you cannot do X even if all of you are in favour, then X had better be the absolute essence without which OSM cannot continue under any circumstances. I think that you cannot choose a license that is not free and open matches this absolute essence pretty well. Now if someone says: I have firm beliefs and even if OSM in the future has 10 million active mappers and 2/3 of them decide they want a license that I don't like then I want to withdraw my contribution at that point (and that's what it boils down to - if we have no license change clause in the CT then you will have to be asked at that point) - then that is a very individualistic view; a view in which your data always remains yours, and never fully becomes part of the whole; a view in which your contribution is always provisional, in which you only lend the project something but not give. If you spend your time in, say, the local cycle campaign, improving the lot of cyclists, working long hours for many years, but then they snuggle up to a political party you don't like, then you can leave - but what you have contributed all those years will not be in vain, the effects will remain and be useful. Many people spend their spare time on voluntary work of some kind, and it is very unusual to have a clause that says if times change and suddenly I find myself in a minority in this project then I want the right to retroactively remove all my contributions because they are mine and mine only. Neither will you demand a written guarantee that the organisation is never going to change - most will have statutes, but those statutes can usually be changed by a certain majority. I am trying to take this discussion away from whether PD is better than share-alike and whether or not there is some secret PD campaign at work here trying to liberate (in their sense) OSM. I do not think it should matter. I don't want to engage in legal nitpicking either. I want to make a moral point. I belive that: * OSM is a collaborative effort. Licenses and copyright aside, what I contribute becomes part of the whole and cannot, should not be viewed as separate. Others will use my contribution and build on it. Withdrawing it later means ruining their work too. OSM is not the place for ownership. * Any organisation, or group, or project, should be able to govern themselves. Those who do the work should decide. From these two points follows, for me, that we must allow OSM-in-the-future to decide what license they want to
[OSM-legal-talk] Advice for transiki
Hello again, This time, no weird things. I thinked a little about the whole transit data stuff, and I had an idea: if we think of the very minimalistic set of things, that someone willing to go to a lost place needs to know to succeed in planning his trip (I especially think of very lost places, far in the countryside), then maybe, the operating centre (say, headquarters' adress), and at least the welcome page of the website, of surrounding transit agencies, would still be a good start for that. If, by clicking a place, any user could have access to this minimalistic set of data about surrounding transit agencies, then at least he would know where to search the remaining data he needs to plan his trip. I am thinking here of a trip I made to portugal last summer, and about my endless search for a transit agency that would cover a specific place, 30km west of Lisbon (West Birre and Murches, for those who know), and I found everything about what was just 8km east or further of that point, but nothing closer, no matter how hard I searched for it. If only I had known the names of the transit agencies that operated on that specific place, or at least around there (but as much of them as possible, ideally all of them!) then when searching their name + if necessary the names of surrounding cities, on google, I might have found something. And then, if any data concerning these agencies were available on the internet (even by some local people that would have put these timetables on a local site, not belonging to the transit agency: this is not our problem!), I would have found the reamaining information I needed : plan, and timetable, without anybody violating any copyright or database right. The problem of transit agencies who do not have a web site is another concern, as for that it falls back to the issue of true transit data and the necessity of an authorization to reproduce it (if the data about their lines isn't available at all on the internet, then without the authorization you could link to nowhere, neither could you take pictures and extract anything from them to put it on the internet, without proper authorization; and unless the positions of the bus stops, acquired by means of a gps, are free to use (which, I guess, we still cannot decide for sure), then I think, based on what was said earlier, that we can do nothing about this problem yet.) So, I would like to know: is it possible, without asking any permission, to put at least one geographical point about a transit agency, on the osm (or transiki) map, weither it be the adress of its headquarters or the barycentre of their transport network, and, say, the number (amount) of their lines?The total amount of lines a company operates, and if possible, the average distance each line runs on, would be useful to know in order to decide, for example, wether you include a transit agency in a search related to one point on the map, or not. It would give a hint about its transport network's radius of operation, how far it can reach, more or less. Also, you could simply classify transit agencies in different categories: urban, interurban, regional, national, if it happens that average line length is still too much data to be free of use. And also, is it always possible to link to a website's front page without asking permission to the site's owner? I'm asking here about minimalistic things, I mean, there must at least be * something* you could systematicly say about all transit agencies, wether they agree with it or not, on transiki, and possibly, without any strong dependancy to the local country's law...and if the headquarters' adress is still not a free piece of data you can add without asking, then find another relevant set of coordinates. At least something! And what about quoting the name itself of the transit agency? Isn't it using a trademark on a third party website without authorization of the owner of the trademark? I would say no based on the fact that google seems to have the authorization to display almost anything about a company when you search for it - on google, but still... Thank you in advance for your help, and sorry if I insist like that on the not asking the authorization thing: I only believe that it could make the gathering of at least *some* data...much much faster, and the coverage of the transiki map, at least in its poorest informative power, could be really great much more quickly, if we can achieve it legally. And besides, it would need much less effort, than if we always had to negociate with every single transit agency, to get any single piece of their data, especially if they never answer to anything about these type of questions, for any reason they may have... Good night Andrei ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Advice for transiki
Hi, I would suggest that the devil is in the details, please be specific. my I suggest that you write a wikipeidia article about the agency or wikitravel page about the timeplan/schedule and I will review it. mike On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Andrei Klochko transportspl...@gmail.com wrote: Hello again, This time, no weird things. I thinked a little about the whole transit data stuff, and I had an idea: if we think of the very minimalistic set of things, that someone willing to go to a lost place needs to know to succeed in planning his trip (I especially think of very lost places, far in the countryside), then maybe, the operating centre (say, headquarters' adress), and at least the welcome page of the website, of surrounding transit agencies, would still be a good start for that. If, by clicking a place, any user could have access to this minimalistic set of data about surrounding transit agencies, then at least he would know where to search the remaining data he needs to plan his trip. I am thinking here of a trip I made to portugal last summer, and about my endless search for a transit agency that would cover a specific place, 30km west of Lisbon (West Birre and Murches, for those who know), and I found everything about what was just 8km east or further of that point, but nothing closer, no matter how hard I searched for it. If only I had known the names of the transit agencies that operated on that specific place, or at least around there (but as much of them as possible, ideally all of them!) then when searching their name + if necessary the names of surrounding cities, on google, I might have found something. And then, if any data concerning these agencies were available on the internet (even by some local people that would have put these timetables on a local site, not belonging to the transit agency: this is not our problem!), I would have found the reamaining information I needed : plan, and timetable, without anybody violating any copyright or database right. The problem of transit agencies who do not have a web site is another concern, as for that it falls back to the issue of true transit data and the necessity of an authorization to reproduce it (if the data about their lines isn't available at all on the internet, then without the authorization you could link to nowhere, neither could you take pictures and extract anything from them to put it on the internet, without proper authorization; and unless the positions of the bus stops, acquired by means of a gps, are free to use (which, I guess, we still cannot decide for sure), then I think, based on what was said earlier, that we can do nothing about this problem yet.) So, I would like to know: is it possible, without asking any permission, to put at least one geographical point about a transit agency, on the osm (or transiki) map, weither it be the adress of its headquarters or the barycentre of their transport network, and, say, the number (amount) of their lines?The total amount of lines a company operates, and if possible, the average distance each line runs on, would be useful to know in order to decide, for example, wether you include a transit agency in a search related to one point on the map, or not. It would give a hint about its transport network's radius of operation, how far it can reach, more or less. Also, you could simply classify transit agencies in different categories: urban, interurban, regional, national, if it happens that average line length is still too much data to be free of use. And also, is it always possible to link to a website's front page without asking permission to the site's owner? I'm asking here about minimalistic things, I mean, there must at least be something you could systematicly say about all transit agencies, wether they agree with it or not, on transiki, and possibly, without any strong dependancy to the local country's law...and if the headquarters' adress is still not a free piece of data you can add without asking, then find another relevant set of coordinates. At least something! And what about quoting the name itself of the transit agency? Isn't it using a trademark on a third party website without authorization of the owner of the trademark? I would say no based on the fact that google seems to have the authorization to display almost anything about a company when you search for it - on google, but still... Thank you in advance for your help, and sorry if I insist like that on the not asking the authorization thing: I only believe that it could make the gathering of at least some data...much much faster, and the coverage of the transiki map, at least in its poorest informative power, could be really great much more quickly, if we can achieve it legally. And besides, it would need much less effort, than if we always had to negociate with every single transit agency, to get any single piece of their data, especially if
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 11:40, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and on with vexatious claims. What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you point them out? List archive links prefered. So you've seen my claims and so I can only conclude you are most likely trying to push me into wasting time to gather links to posts you are already fully aware of. Go Fish. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 8 December 2010 11:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of future mappers. In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Nice bait and switch... In your first paragraph you lump ODBL+CT together and then you conveneintly only use ODBL in your second paragraph, please point out if the UK Open Government License is also compatible with ODBL+CT. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
