Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On 8 April 2011 16:55, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping. Until recently CC people were taking a contrary approach to what they seem to be taking now, I can't help but think the timing more than likely had something to do with the continuing debate over OSM-F licenses. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On 08/04/11 07:55, Ed Avis wrote: I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping. I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually been announced yet. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On 8 April 2011 11:38, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ed, transfer rights to the OSMF I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions. The contributors aren't doing anything it is the OSMF that is holding the data to ransom. This need to be finalised sooner rather than later so that OSM mapping can recommence. The current license has worked well for many years with significant transgressors (Google, Waze et al) respecting it. I would prefer OSM worked with Creative Commons on 4.0 rather than deleting contributions. As to which licence we run under, it doesn't matter to me at all, since I believe it should be public domain anyway. I'll leave that for others to bicker about but full rights to the data by the project is essential, in my opinion. I read recently (not sure if true) that Libreoffice in their fork from Openoffice had abandoned CT's and seen a big increase in contributors. I wonder if introducing CT's will have the opposite impact on OSM. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Kevin Peat kevin@... writes: I read recently (not sure if true) that Libreoffice in their fork from Openoffice had abandoned CT's and seen a big increase in contributors. I wonder if introducing CT's will have the opposite impact on OSM. I've seen this sentiment expressed: http://lwn.net/Articles/417053/. That is just one person, though. I think all that can safely be said is that it doesn't help to attract mappers. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Hi, On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote: I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping. I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually been announced yet. The noises emanating from CC seem to say basically that 1. certainly no CC-BY-SA 4.0 in 2011 and perhaps not even in 2012; 2. CC will not write licenses that restrict content over and above what is protected by law in any given country. While I personally find #2 honourable - after all they are for open data and against adding restrictions so it does make sense - this would, in our specific case, mean that we have no solution for the problem that our data is not protected in the US. Also, Ed, I think that your wording transfer rights to the OSMF wrong because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. One of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher of the database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in a position to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions like can I do X, something that we cannot do today. I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms would still make a lot of sense. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: to transfer rights to the OSMF. But, you still own rights to the data you contributed (you can give it however you want to anybody else). You're just giving OSMF the permission to release your data as part of a database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, time period for reply to a new license change (active contributor)
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Michael Collinson mike@... writes: - In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at least several months of publicity and discussion before the final formal vote announcement. At the moment there is something of a credibility gap because while we are assured that any major licence change in future would have a formal vote, that principle isn't being followed for the ODbL introduction. The current license upgrade gives each contributor even more voice than they would have in a vote, as they may choose to exclude their contributions from future license considerations. That you see a credibility gap strains logic and ignores each of the votes, polls and surveys to date. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: Also, Ed, I think that your wording transfer rights to the OSMF wrong because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. Eugene Alvin Villar also pointed this out; I should have written 'grant rights to the OSMF'. One of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher of the database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in a position to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions like can I do X, something that we cannot do today. To me that doesn't sound like a wholly good thing. But in any case, the licence text matters more than answers to FAQs. The OSMF might be able to grant extra permissions, or to clarify the meaning of the licence in more liberal terms, although I'd suggest this should require a contributor vote, since it is effectively changing the licensing terms of the project. I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms would still make a lot of sense. Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA would take care of it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote: I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping. I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually been announced yet. The noises emanating from CC seem to say basically that 1. certainly no CC-BY-SA 4.0 in 2011 and perhaps not even in 2012; So 4.0 will be ready long before OSM switches to ODbL then ;) 2. CC will not write licenses that restrict content over and above what is protected by law in any given country. While I personally find #2 honourable - after all they are for open data and against adding restrictions so it does make sense - this would, in our specific case, mean that we have no solution for the problem that our data is not protected in the US. Is there any evidence that OSM data has been abused more in the US than in any other country? OSM has been around a long time now and time has shown that the reasons for switching to ODbL are unjustified. Where is this threat that ODbL is supposed to be protecting us from? Also, Ed, I think that your wording transfer rights to the OSMF wrong because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. One of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher of the database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in a position to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions like can I do X, something that we cannot do today. No, that's not correct. Judges make authoritative interpretations of license terms. Not the people who own the IP or who wrote the license. I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms would still make a lot of sense. 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] Compliance timeline
Hi, On 04/08/2011 05:05 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms would still make a lot of sense. Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA would take care of it. I was trying to say that even if we had that forward compatibility, we would still be better off with proper contributor terms. For example, we have this situation now where we say if you make a web application and display your layer in a separatable fashion over an OSM layer, this is not a derived work, but a collective work. Most of us agree that this is how we want to handle it, but there is nothing written in the license that says so, and even if all but one contributor agree on this, that one contributor could sue whoever does what I described for breach of license. The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can actually make a reliable statement expressing the community interpretation of certain points of the license, rather than the current well most people say this is so but of course we cannot guarantee anything. This is a good thing because it removes obstacles to using OSM data, and should be pursued in any case, even if we chose to ultimately wait for CC-BY-SA 4. Of course introducing contributor terms would always mean we have to go through the process we're currently going through, so the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA wouldn't help us in terms of having to ask everybody, risk data loss, and so on. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: For example, we have this situation now where we say if you make a web application and display your layer in a separatable fashion over an OSM layer, this is not a derived work, but a collective work. The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can actually make a reliable statement expressing the community interpretation of certain points of the license, rather than the current well most people say this is so but of course we cannot guarantee anything. Yes - if this interpretation is the more liberal one. OSMF would not be in a position to state that putting a layer on top *does* make a derived work, if the licence text and copyright case law said otherwise. Well, they could state it, but would have to go to court to see if they were correct. This is a good thing because it removes obstacles to using OSM data, and should be pursued in any case, even if we chose to ultimately wait for CC-BY-SA 4. It's unfortunate that the proposed contributor terms and the proposed new licence have been bundled into one all-or-nothing process. It would make more sense to first get agreement on granting extra rights to the OSMF, and if that's accepted by the community, then go through the 2/3 vote process for any licence change. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Am 08.04.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Avis: Frederik Rammfrederik@... writes: I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms would still make a lot of sense. Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA would take care of it. Actually it wouldn't. The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers, representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license. As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to distribute the data under a higher version. Since the pre-CT terms can at least be read differently than the current OSMF interpretation, it is a least open to dispute if the same wouldn't apply for mappers data that haven't relicensed yet IANAL Simon PS: in an hour or so, we will be over 10'000 explicit acceptances of the CTs ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Simon Poole simon@... writes: The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers, representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license. As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to distribute the data under a higher version. Interesting. So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF under CC-BY-SA 2.0. I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified. If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three? (according to your reading of the proposed CTs) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On 8 April 2011 18:10, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Interesting. So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF under CC-BY-SA 2.0. I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision That much is clear. The CT's impose various obligations on OSMF beyond those under CC-BY-SA, in particular in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified. Yes. Assuming we are talking about: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms Clause 3 restricts OSMF to a specific set of licences. If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three? (according to your reading of the proposed CTs) They don't so specify. The list is disjunctive: only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence ... So OSMF may use any subset (including the empty set) of such licences. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Am 08.04.2011 19:10, schrieb Ed Avis: Simon Poolesimon@... writes: The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers, representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license. As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in CC-by-SA 2.0 would only be effective for a licensee (that received the data under 2.0) that wants to distribute the data under a higher version. Interesting. So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF under CC-BY-SA 2.0. I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade provision in ODbL 1.0 is also nullified. IMHO mappers licensing their data to the OSMF under CC-by-SA is not a useful concept, nor was it ever. And if it is just because the license simply can't apply to the majority of contributions. But I digress. Since in the arrangement between the mappers and the OSMF specific versions of the licenses are listed, it is clear that these cannot be changed without a vote. BTW a very good thing. In any case as I pointed out before, the upgrade clauses allow recipients of the data to use a higher version of the license when -they- distribute the licensed object, they cannot affect the internal arrangements between the mappers and the OSMF. If the CTs specify CC-BY-SA 'and' ODbL 'and' DbCL, does that mean the OSMF is free to distribute under any of those it chooses, or must it be all three? (according to your reading of the proposed CTs) It's two licenses, not three. The way I read it, parallel dual licensing would be possible. But again IANAL. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
