Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Hi, On 01/05/11 09:01, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Is there a tool available to remove all my contributed data from osm, safeguard it, and allows me to resubmit once I can agree with the CT and new license ? No. You would probably negatively affect a lot of other contributions by removing your data. This might be considered vandalism. If you were to remove your data now, others would probably undo the removal. Also, re-submitting your data later would create new objects, thus destroying the history; this is something we would not want to become the normal procedure. Once the CT becomes binding, this will have to be carried out by OSMF anyway for a substantial number of users, I don't expect the number to be substantial. so it would be best to allow for users to do this themselves. Certainly not; even if OSMF has to remove data from users who have not relicensed their data, it is better to do so in one co-ordinated process rather than lots of people trying to do it themselves. Of course, there has to be discussed about the rules that will govern the removals, as 1^st of April is quickly coming, we should start the discussion. Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. In addition we need to determine a procedure so as users cannot remove data from other contributors, so some authentication is required. No. Everyone in OSM can remove everything without authentication. Anyone thinking about it ? Can we start a discussion ? Why do you worry? Just leave this to OSMF. If they don't do their job properly you can still sue them for violating your copyright. In addition to all the other problems you would be causing, you would also hurt any potential CC-BY-SA forks (which are likely to use the last published CC-BY-SA planet as a starting point, and that planet would not contain your data if you remove it prematurely). Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. Can you clarify this? I understood that the CTs were per-person, not per-account, so if you are unable to agree to them for existing contributions you would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have to agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions too). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On 5 January 2011 12:09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. Can you clarify this? I understood that the CTs were per-person, not per-account, so if you are unable to agree to them for existing contributions you would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have to agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions too). Repeated again... per account. The 1.0 version of the CT terms are not clear, but the intent is per account. It has been fixed in the current draft revision of the CTs which should hopefully go live in the next few weeks. Regards Grant Member of the LWG ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On 5 January 2011 22:15, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Repeated again... per account. The 1.0 version of the CT terms are not clear, but the intent is per account. And here I was thinking that contracts are about what's in them... No matter how much you'd wish and hope they'd have been more clear to begin with, it won't change the wording until you actually update what people can agree to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:09:41 + (UTC), Ed Avis wrote: Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. Can you clarify this? I understood that the CTs were per-person, not per-account, so if you are unable to agree to them for existing contributions you would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have to agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions too). CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate accounts together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail address. Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept or not accept the CT for his currently exisiting account as he wishes. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Hi, On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote: If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why are we not using it now? I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their data because they have not signed up to any CT that would allow us to do so even if they are in the minority. Also, there is no binding definition on who is an active contributor (and thus has a right to vote). So this procedure really is only possible *after* everyone has signed up. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: I understood that the CTs were per-person, not per-account, so if you are unable to agree to them for existing contributions you would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have to agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions too). Repeated again... per account. The 1.0 version of the CT terms are not clear, but the intent is per account. It has been fixed in the current draft revision of the CTs which should hopefully go live in the next few weeks. Thanks, that's useful to know. I see that 'in this user account' has been added in the draft https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On 5 January 2011 22:21, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate accounts together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail address. Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept or not accept the CT for his currently exisiting account as he wishes. You seem to be confusing enforcement of contracts with the contract itself. Just because something might be difficult to enforce doesn't make it less enforcible, and as usual, it mostly effects those that tend to err to the side of caution/honesty. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 04:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 January 2011 04:37, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first. I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such data would be removed, not may be removed, or there has to be firm statements that attribution would be a requirement of future licenses or that data simply couldn't be incorporated as far as I can see. Our mapping is (likely) illegal in North Korea and a few other regions. I bet we would not remove the data even if formally demanded by the North Korean Government etc. The language choice of language is intentional. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 22:28, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Our mapping is (likely) illegal in North Korea and a few other You have mentioned China, because mapping there is illegal without the proper permits or whatever you need. regions. I bet we would not remove the data even if formally demanded by the North Korean Government etc. Since OSM data is hosted in the UK this is mostly a strawman argument. This is argument is only applicable for those that are collecting data by survey, since they would be breaking the law. The language choice of language is intentional. What exactly is your point here? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such data would be removed, not may be removed As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms, whether the illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing copyright material without permission. So when the CTs say that [OSMF] may delete that data, that's just a warning to the user. It doesn't need to be a promise of we won't break the law because that's taken as read - especially in the light of the clause that starts off the whole of Section 1, We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891824.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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Ed Avis wrote: I think that actions speak louder than words svn is that way cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891828.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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms, whether the illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing copyright material without permission. What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law? This seems like comparing apples and oranges, of course you can't kill people, well there is even exceptions there but that is getting off topic. The problem here is the fact that you want to do something, incorporate OS data into OSM, however I can't see how the current CTs, or even any of the rivisions would allow this unless you added some guarantees of actions that would be taken in future if the license was changed. So when the CTs say that [OSMF] may delete that data, that's just a warning to the user. It doesn't need to be a promise of we won't break the law because that's taken as read - especially in the light of the clause Breaking contracts isn't usually breaking the law, however the law can be invoked to remedy any breaches of that contract law, however I'm not claiming that, I'm saying you can't even do something unless you have at least some kind of policy on outcomes of certain events occurring, in this case putting it in the CT contract would make a lot of sense if you actually wanted to allow others to do something that the CTs would otherwise prohibit. that starts off the whole of Section 1, We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others. Which to me is typical cover your ass type clauses that exist in most places, it doesn't state how or what would happen in cases that that clause is breached. This goes back to Steve Bennett's question about unagreeing to the CT, it seems to me he breached the CTs the moment he agreed to them in which case the CT would be null and void since nothing is specified as to what should happen. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why are we not using it now? I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their data Right! And it would be much easier to get their agreement if you said 'there has been a free and fair vote, and most people voted in favour of the change, so it would be good for you to cooperate'... rather than 'we have already decided what we want to do, now click Yes or be deleted from the project'. Also, there is no binding definition on who is an active contributor (and thus has a right to vote). So this procedure really is only possible *after* everyone has signed up. Indeed. Surely the right thing to do, if we accept for the time being that a centralized licensing model is the way forward, is to first sort out the contributor terms and get general agreement, then have the discussion and vote on whether to move to ODbL, dual-licensing, public domain or anything else. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Frederic said as a reply: No. You would probably negatively affect a lot of other contributions by removing your data. This might be considered vandalism. If you were to remove your data now, others would probably undo the removal. These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT (as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn. I just want OSMF to create a procedure on how to do this without creating the damage you refer to. some suggestion: One possibility would to have a block bit on my data, excluding it from being processed when creating tiles, or being exported. Other OSM-ers may be allowed to edit until I finally decide to have it completely removed, or undo the block bit. That would not harm history. I don't expect the number to be substantial. Your Opinion ! Certainly not; even if OSMF has to remove data from users who have not relicensed their data, it is better to do so in one co-ordinated process rather than lots of people trying to do it themselves. That is what I am asking for: a well thought out process, preventing me from using JOSM. Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. No edit with my account leads to that I demand my previous data to be removed. No. Everyone in OSM can remove everything without authentication. This authentication was to prevent me from deleting *your* data (in full) thus to guarantee your rights. Why do you worry? Just leave this to OSMF. If they don't do their job properly you can still sue them for violating your copyright. OSMF seems to have other priorities then truly free data. Free data needs no license or CT. In addition to all the other problems you would be causing, you would also hurt any potential CC-BY-SA forks (which are likely to use the last published CC-BY-SA planet as a starting point, and that planet would not contain your data if you remove it prematurely). That is a valid argument. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Frederik Ramm Verzonden: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:20 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006 Hi, On 01/05/11 09:01, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Is there a tool available to remove all my contributed data from osm, safeguard it, and allows me to resubmit once I can agree with the CT and new license ? No. You would probably negatively affect a lot of other contributions by removing your data. This might be considered vandalism. If you were to remove your data now, others would probably undo the removal. Also, re-submitting your data later would create new objects, thus destroying the history; this is something we would not want to become the normal procedure. Once the CT becomes binding, this will have to be carried out by OSMF anyway for a substantial number of users, I don't expect the number to be substantial. so it would be best to allow for users to do this themselves. Certainly not; even if OSMF has to remove data from users who have not relicensed their data, it is better to do so in one co-ordinated process rather than lots of people trying to do it themselves. Of course, there has to be discussed about the rules that will govern the removals, as 1^st of April is quickly coming, we should start the discussion. Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. In addition we need to determine a procedure so as users cannot remove data from other contributors, so some authentication is required. No. Everyone in OSM can remove everything without authentication. Anyone thinking about it ? Can we start a discussion ? Why do you worry? Just leave this to OSMF. If they don't do their job properly you can still sue them for violating your copyright. In addition to all the other problems you would be causing, you would also hurt any potential CC-BY-SA forks (which are likely to use the last published CC-BY-SA planet as a starting point, and that planet would not contain your data if you remove it prematurely). 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] How to remove my data since 2006
On 05/01/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT (as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn. Why? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Maarten Deen md...@... writes: CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate accounts together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail address. Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept or not accept the CT for his currently exisiting account as he wishes. That brings to my mind that how we can ever say in a reliable way who is an active contributor as defined by the CTs An active contributor is defined as: a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On 2011-01-05 14:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT (as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn. Just out of curiosity: What do you consider as your data? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Hi, On 01/05/2011 02:14 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. No edit with my account leads to that I demand my previous data to be removed. There is no legal basis for such a demand. No. Everyone in OSM can remove everything without authentication. This authentication was to prevent me from deleting *your* data (in full) thus to guarantee your rights. If you were to delete data that I have contributed, you would not violate any of my rights. Your act might be considered vandalism, and reverted, nonetheless. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms [...] What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law? Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England Wales; and the CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be governed by English law. From CDPA 1988 (there's lots more): A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner... distributes... to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright... an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work. The penalty is up to ten years' imprisonment. Scary stuff. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892001.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] How to remove my data since 2006
Gert Gremmen wrote: Free data needs no license or CT. I agree! I'm really glad you - like me and many others - are dedicating your data to the public domain. No licence, no CT. Once OSM continues under new license and CT (as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn. Oh, oops, too late. You just dedicated your data to the public domain. That means anyone can do anything with it, e.g. distribute it under ODbL+CT. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-How-to-remove-my-data-since-2006-tp5891290p5892034.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] How to remove my data since 2006
You have a point. ; But I wrote just my intention, not my decision. But I can still remove whatever data I consider mine. (well, until april 1st) Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Richard Fairhurst Verzonden: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 3:06 PM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006 Gert Gremmen wrote: Free data needs no license or CT. I agree! I'm really glad you - like me and many others - are dedicating your data to the public domain. No licence, no CT. Once OSM continues under new license and CT (as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn. Oh, oops, too late. You just dedicated your data to the public domain. That means anyone can do anything with it, e.g. distribute it under ODbL+CT. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-How-to-remove-my-data-since-2006-tp5891290p5892034.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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 23:53, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England Wales; and the CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be governed by English law. I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying music. From CDPA 1988 (there's lots more): A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner... distributes... to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright... an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work. The penalty is up to ten years' imprisonment. Scary stuff. Would that penalty be for personal or commercial infringement? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 6 January 2011 00:29, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying music. ... being sued to the same extent outside the US... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright infringement as a criminal offence... It's an offence in EW whether personal or commercial. For a business, it's an offence to distribute copyrighted material without licence; for an individual, it's an offence to distribute it (as I quoted) to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright. Would that penalty be for personal or commercial infringement? Either. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892124.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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 4 January 2011 23:33, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first. However, is there any guarantee that OSMF will remove such data first? I'm not quite sure I see your point. There's no guarantee that the OSMF board won't infringe the OS OpenData licence, sure, but there's also no guarantee that the OSMF board won't go berserk and start gunning down Google's executives. Both would be illegal. There are already laws about not shooting Google executives - we don't need to explicitly add them to the Contributor Terms. Setting aside clause 1 of the new revision of the contributor terms ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1 ) as that seems to conflict with the later terms, it's my understanding that clauses 2-4 have the following effect: Clause 2 requires contributors to make a large grant of IP rights to OSMF on any content added to OSM. I believe that the intent here is actually that you only grant OSMF the rights necessary for them to act as described in clauses 3 and 4. (A strict reading would say that you need to grant them all the rights, and in return they agree only to use them as described in clauses 3 and 4 -- this stricter interpretation is problematic as it would mean you could essentially only add PD data, or data that IP owners had given explicit permission for, but this is by-the-by for the current argument.) Lets now consider what rights are necessary for OSMF to act as described in clauses 3 and 4. Since the data will be initially distributed under CC-By-SA and ODbL, you must have sufficient rights to allow the data you contribute to be distributed in this way. Since there is also the possibility of OSM content later being distributed under a license that requires no downstream attribution or share-alike provisions, then you must have sufficient rights to be able to give that right to so distribute the data to OSMF. So if the license you have data under contains share-alike or viral-attribution clauses then you do not have the necessary rights to grant to OSMF, and therefore it cannot be contributed under the terms of clause 2. However, I'm not sure how clause 1 fits into this. Regardless of what is says about not having to guarantee that the data is compatible with current or future licenses, clause 2 still requires you to grant OSMF rights that would make it so. The only obvious resolution I can see is if clause 2 is meant to refer only to the contributor's own IP rights in the contents they submit -- but that's not what the current wording says: You hereby grant to OSMF a ... licence to do any act ... over anything within the Contents. If it is meant to only cover the contributor's own IP rights in the submitted contents, then I think the wording needs top be clarified. But then I'd be happy that you'd be able to use OS OpenData under those CTs. (Though I still think it's debatable whether the OS OpenData License is compatible with ODbL -- the last I heard directly from OS is that they consider that it isn't. But that's sort of irrelevant if the CTs don't require you to guarantee it. And hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, which is explicitly compatible with ODbL.) -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
To answer Robert's question. In my view clause 2 needs - and I hope that it will include in its final version - a limitation that you only grant a licence in respect of any rights that you have. The aim (I believe) is this: * the contributor licenses very broadly OSMF to permit them to use any rights (in copyright or database right) that the contributor has in the data contributed * whether or not the contributor has any intellectual property rights in the data contributed, they are asked not to contribute data if that contribution would infringe someone else's IP rights, but they are expressly told they don't have to guarantee that is the case (because the contributor won't in general be a lawyer) * OSMF promises to use data in a restricted set of ways (as set out in clause 3 and 4). In order for this to work as planned, clause 2 needs some words of limitation eg and to the extent that you are able to do so. I realise I owe a response to a much earlier question about whether and to what extent contributing data that is later used in breach of an IP right might impact on the contributor (short answer: I doubt there's any risk). I'm just rather busy right now. Sorry. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 13:24, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote: If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why are we not using it now? I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their data because they have not signed up to any CT that would allow us to do so even if they are in the minority. Also, there is no binding definition on who is an active contributor (and thus has a right to vote). So this procedure really is only possible *after* everyone has signed up. There's no mandate or binding definitions for many things today, yet things (like license change) are happening, so I don't see a reason why it should be impossible for the OSMF to assume this definition (since it's well-thought-out) and follow that procedure. I think it's mostly a matter of good will. One reason that I have to recognise for not doing a real vote, only the new terms acceptation, is if OSMF thinks it's too much bother for users and too many difficult to understand questions will bore people who are really just interested in mapping. But I think it *should* be possible for every contributor to easily opt-in for a vote about all the important things currently decided by LWG or the board, like whether to stop accepting contributions under the old license, when, and most importantly whether enough people have accepted the CT to remove old data. But I fear that this will be decided in a small group similarly to the blocking of non-CT contributors in Apr. The original OSMF all-members vote basically asked if the OSMF should proceed with such and such procedure but I would assume (and perhaps not only me) that the intent of the voted question was should we start and see how well it goes and at different points we look at it and see if we still want to proceed. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Swedish law of landscape information
I am wondering if anyone have considered the laws of some countries, at least Sweden, that states that maps and other forms of landscape information should be reviewed before published. This of defense considerations. Probably there is some limitation of the jurisdiction that makes Swedish laws void for OSM. I am asking because I´m downloading part of the OSM-data to my computer. Thereby setting up a database of swedish landscape information in Sweden, so the laws must apply to me. I have sent in an application for a permit to keep the database and later on (when I got the conversions working properly) will make some maps of the neighbourhood for wikipedia. If you already have a permit for the whole data-base, I wouldn´t have to seek one myself. The applicable law is: Lag (1993:1742) om skydd för landskapsinformation and regulation: Förordning (1993:1745) om skydd för landskapsinformation Keep on the good work /Johan Jönsson p.s. The swedish authority Lantmäteriet have started a nice project Geodata.se in accordance with the European INSPIRE directive, hopefully that will be of benefit for us later on. d.s. -- Johan Jönsson joha...@fastmail.fm -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like to run it by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap and similar situations. Here is the CT version that we are looking at formally releasing: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU I am checking through it for any missed drafting snafus and would like to get in one further informal opinion, but hope to make a formal release very soon. Mike At 03:25 PM 5/01/2011, Francis Davey wrote: To answer Robert's question. In my view clause 2 needs - and I hope that it will include in its final version - a limitation that you only grant a licence in respect of any rights that you have. The aim (I believe) is this: * the contributor licenses very broadly OSMF to permit them to use any rights (in copyright or database right) that the contributor has in the data contributed * whether or not the contributor has any intellectual property rights in the data contributed, they are asked not to contribute data if that contribution would infringe someone else's IP rights, but they are expressly told they don't have to guarantee that is the case (because the contributor won't in general be a lawyer) * OSMF promises to use data in a restricted set of ways (as set out in clause 3 and 4). In order for this to work as planned, clause 2 needs some words of limitation eg and to the extent that you are able to do so. I realise I owe a response to a much earlier question about whether and to what extent contributing data that is later used in breach of an IP right might impact on the contributor (short answer: I doubt there's any risk). I'm just rather busy right now. Sorry. -- Francis Davey ___ 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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Mike, I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like to run it by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap and similar situations. The major change in all this, compared to the earlier versions, is the concept that you may now contribute data that is not re-licensable, right? I.e. while we require that you agree to the CT, you can still add data that is, say, some form of share-alike only which would then have to be removed later. Is that correct? Question 1: How would we, later, during some form of relicensing, know which is which? Is there some way, or even requirement, for the contributing user to tell us which license any derived material that he's contributing comes under? Question 2: Say we have a die-hard my contributions are mine alone person who wants to be asked for his ok in any future license change, thereby circumventing the usual if 2/3 of active mappers agree then your data remains in the new database rule. Could someone, of that disposition, let's call him A, not simply do the following: Make a contract with person B that says Dear B, you may use my data but only under ODBL 1.0 and nothing else; then instruct B to upload the stuff to OSM. Now the data is in OSM, but in the event of any later license change, B (and therefore A) would have to be consulted. Crucially, this restriction would also apply should A ever lose interest, or die, or be otherwise unreachable. This would effectively kill the whole reason why we have the license change rule in the first place. Suggestion: If my above thoughts are correct, and if this cannot be remedied - i.e. if we have to accept that there will always be fully CT compatible data and other, not relicensable without agreement from rights holder data - then may I suggest that we devise a way to flag such data in the database, and to somehow make the restricted-use data inert so that we don't (again, over the years) create a situation where many contributors erect their work on a foundation that may be taken away from them at any time? I.e., when you upload something then you should explicitly say: What I'm uploading here is to the best of my knowledge free of rights of others, or you would say What I'm uploading here is compatible with OSM now but subject to third-party IP rights. In the latter case, others could either not edit your data at all (except of course deleting it), or they would at least see some kind of indication in their editor that basically tells them this data is not as free as we'd like it to be, and if they possess enough raw material to replace the data with something fully CT compatible, they should do so. 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] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Could someone, of that disposition, let's call him A, not simply do the following: Make a contract with person B that says Dear B, you may use my data but only under ODBL 1.0 and nothing else; then instruct B to upload the stuff to OSM. Now the data is in OSM, but in the event of any later license change, B (and therefore A) would have to be consulted. This does seem to be possible from a strictly legalistic point of view. I think that in the CTs (as in other things) we should concentrate more on the spirit of the agreement than on trying to armour-plate it in legalese. It would be better to have a free and obvious choice: (A) I am happy to license my data under the currently used licences, and I am also happy for the OSMF to relicense it in the future. (I understand that the OSMF has agreed to hold a vote of active contributors in such a case.) (B) I will contribute data under the current licences but I would like to be asked again if some different licence is chosen in the future. (I am aware that both CC-BY-SA and ODbL have upgrade clauses of various kinds, so it is possible for new versions of these licences to be published and used without requiring additional permission from me.) Given such a choice and the appropriate community expectations, most people would choose option (A) if they trust the OSMF to do the right thing. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at the end of it, however the CTs introduce, with respect to licensing, an uncertainty about the license the project will operate in future. Or to put this in context, how many people would contribute to a GPL project that has a CT with a similar relicensing clause, meaning to allow future contributors to make all kinds of licensing decisions on behalf of those that laid the ground work to switch to a BSD license. Grant and others keep going on about reading the spirit of the CT more than the wording, but at present OSM uses a share a like license (similar to GPL) but might switch to a PD/BSD license in future, this uncertainty will turn many in the software world off, as I keep asking why is the majority of OSM software so proudly offered under GPL and not BSD if you want things to be future proofed? Why is asking OSM(F) for some license certainty such a bad thing, it's this kind of statement that would define if you like, the types of people willing to contribute. Take for example Frederik's post a couple of months ago about no longer contributing to OSM if it wasn't even remotely possible for OSM to be PD in future. Then you have the new sign up stats, I'm not sure how many have ticked the PD box, but I'm guessing most don't bother to read what that tick box is for and tick it because they're so used to I agree boxes at the bottom of sign up forms, and not expecting that it does something completely different. Alternatively you also have SteveC who has made comments about not supporting a change to a license without share a like. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
