Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
Hi, On 01/19/12 03:07, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, Ah yes. This really is a problem, and it certainly was a very bad decision to make that change to the CT. The issue has been discussed here http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html and elsewhere on this list. We can only hope that most people misunderstand this whole thing and in their minds treat agreeing to CT and agreeing to ODbL the same. A strict reading of the current CT leads to the conclusion that while we can re-build the database to only contain data by CT agreers in April, we cannot release the result under ODbL because we do not even *know* which contributions are ODbL compatible and which aren't. I hope that LWG have some clever plan on how to deal with this. Otherwise they would not have made that change when they released 1.2.4, right ;-)? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury for imported CC-BY-SA data again here is my statement, I am still getting spam mails from bots on accepting the license. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777 mike On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed. Now OSM uses their map data and entire cities initially imported from their project are shown green. This is a consequence of how LWG wrote the Contibutor Terms and the cleanness-criteri -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and this leads to a lot of misunderstandings. (This should be fixed if the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be) Yep and I used this logic (which is confirmed by http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005916.html even though I didn't know it at the time) when I agreed to the CTs as I stated http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Ah yes. This really is a problem, and it certainly was a very bad decision to make that change to the CT. The issue has been discussed here http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html and elsewhere on this list. We can only hope that most people misunderstand this whole thing and in their minds treat agreeing to CT and agreeing to ODbL the same. A strict reading of the current CT leads to the conclusion that while we can re-build the database to only contain data by CT agreers in April, we cannot release the result under ODbL because we do not even *know* which contributions are ODbL compatible and which aren't. I hope that LWG have some clever plan on how to deal with this. Otherwise they would not have made that change when they released 1.2.4, right ;-)? Spot on. Thanks for highlighting this issue. There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to the CTs anyway with the logic andrzej pointed out. I would be happy to try to track down the source tags I used for this data for the LWG, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it if I don't feel the LWG will take it seriously when trying to clean the DB of non-ODBL content. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
Am 19.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Andrew Harvey: . There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to the CTs anyway with the logic andrzej pointed out. I would be happy to try to track down the source tags I used for this data for the LWG, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it if I don't feel the LWG will take it seriously when trying to clean the DB of non-ODBL content. Which non-ODBL compliant source would this be, if I may ask? Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote: Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a false representation. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote: Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a false representation. Well then it continues. 1. I get all these mails from people who are telling me to switch, they just dont stop or listen. 2. when I work on saving my data and providing maps under a license I understand and have experience, get forced out of the project. 3. when you get forced out, then you work on saving your work, and are not allowed to interact on the mailing list (forks are counterproductive) This is all pressure in various forms. I get shunned on facebook and get private mails from people in osm pressuring me. thanks, mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
Hi, On 18.01.2012 23:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list) to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in I didn't know about that list - I'll join it. terms of policy, LWG will have the ultimate decision. And they are asking for out input via the What is clean page. That page is not, and was not intended to be, a binding document - it might become one later. I assume that LWG will certainly value your help in improving that document. Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the What is clean page, because I wasn't sure whether I was entitled to edit it, not being an LWG member. IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, What is a copyrightable object in OSM?. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. It has often been said that computer geeks, of which I presume you are one, are not well suited to perform legal analyis. The lawyer's answer to Is a node copyrightable? will almost certainly be it depends. (On country, circumstances, ...) Sure. In OSM, our current answers are: Yes, we treat a node as copyrightable; If yes, what's copyrightable about it? Its position and tags, unless the tags have been created automatically. What's copyrightable about a way? The sequence of its nodes and its tags. Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Every single tag and every single node reference are a treated as copyrightable by us. Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Atomic. So moving a way is not considered a modification of the way, but of the individual nodes. And changing a way's references from ABC to ACB is not a modification at all, because no reference is created and no reference is removed. We cannot say that there was a modification in regard to any of the references. Next question, since according to your answers the approach is rather fine-grained, one might ask if single words within tags are copyrightable. What about roles of relation members, are they separated from the members' references? Above all, we must not forget to consider whether the creation or modification of a single reference, a single role - i.e. anything we say to be atomic - can possibly constitute a creative work. Considering that neither the definitions of what is clean and what is tainted nor the technical details of the implementation have yet been finalized, it seems unreasonable for me to remap. Thankfully, few other people think like you do. There may be edge cases, but I guess that whichever way these edge cases are decided, a significant portion of what is now considered tainted will always be tainted. And that stuff should be remapped *now*. I will certainly start remapping at some point. It's just that I don't feel confident about it at the moment, because there are so many unanswered questions. It's ok to discuss these things, but the approach I won't move a finger until I am told *exactly* what the rules are is not helpful. The rules might *never* be final - even when we do the rebuild according to the then-believed-final rules, it could happen that someone later points out an oversight, or a court decides something, forcing us to remove things we thought we could keep or vice versa. You can only ever go up to 80% certainty in these matters. Demanding more is not realistic. I'm not demanding. I just want to help raising the bar of certainty, in order to prevent us from overseeing something. cheers ant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
On 19 January 2012 21:48, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On 18.01.2012 23:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list) to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in I didn't know about that list - I'll join it. terms of policy, LWG will have the ultimate decision. And they are asking for out input via the What is clean page. That page is not, and was not intended to be, a binding document - it might become one later. I assume that LWG will certainly value your help in improving that document. Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the What is clean page, because I wasn't sure whether I was entitled to edit it, not being an LWG member. IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. It has often been said that computer geeks, of which I presume you are one, are not well suited to perform legal analyis. The lawyer's answer to Is a node copyrightable? will almost certainly be it depends. (On country, circumstances, ...) Sure. In OSM, our current answers are: Yes, we treat a node as copyrightable; If yes, what's copyrightable about it? Its position and tags, unless the tags have been created automatically. What's copyrightable about a way? The sequence of its nodes and its tags. Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Every single tag and every single node reference are a treated as copyrightable by us. Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Atomic. So moving a way is not considered a modification of the way, but of the individual nodes. And changing a way's references from ABC to ACB is not a modification at all, because no reference is created and no reference is removed. We cannot say that there was a modification in regard to any of the references. Next question, since according to your answers the approach is rather fine-grained, one might ask if single words within tags are copyrightable. What about roles of relation members, are they separated from the members' references? Above all, we must not forget to consider whether the creation or modification of a single reference, a single role - i.e. anything we say to be atomic - can possibly constitute a creative work. To be safe you cannot make any decision based on what rights a *single* instance of anything would have because the criteria will be applied in bulk. In practice you always have to consider what rights a database of such references could be protected by. Secondly it's known that in some instances in some countries creativity is not required for copyright to work. Thirdly in many countries there are other intellectual property rights that could play some roles. So the criteria have to be based on where you can say there's no content left from an incompatible edit, not whether it's uncreative. Or where something is part of a bulk edit that will be trivial to recreate if it's lost. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
Hi, On 01/19/2012 09:48 PM, ant wrote: So moving a way is not considered a modification of the way, but of the individual nodes. Yes. And changing a way's references from ABC to ACB is not a modification at all, because no reference is created and no reference is removed. We cannot say that there was a modification in regard to any of the references. No, the (relative) place of the reference in the list of references also counts. Changing the node list from 1,2,3 to 3,2,1 is a meaningful change. Next question, since according to your answers the approach is rather fine-grained, one might ask if single words within tags are copyrightable. Our current approach is to take a tag value as a whole. This is certainly not always correct. Also, let me remind you that we don't judge what is copyrightable and what isn't; we're trying to do something that is *reasonable* with regard to copyright. This involves a lot of judgment calls. What about roles of relation members, are they separated from the members' references? I'd treat them like a tag, so yes. Above all, we must not forget to consider whether the creation or modification of a single reference, a single role - i.e. anything we say to be atomic - can possibly constitute a creative work. Some people have called for summarily force-relicensing the contribution of anyone who has added less than a certain amount of data. Problem is, we're starting to get into the database realm. If you take the latest Harry Potter novel then no single word in it is copyrightable. But the combination of a significant portion of words is. Our fine-grained approach (i.e. let's simply try not to use *any* word from Harry Potter, that way we're sure that we won't infringe copyright) might be erring on the side of caution, but I'd prefer that over non-agreers raising a fuss after the license change because they spot something in there that isn't clean. I'm not demanding. I just want to help raising the bar of certainty, in order to prevent us from overseeing something. Well if you find certainty, be sure to inform us since we'll be very interested ;) 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
