Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Stewart Russell 
On 9 September 2016 at 11:22, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> I believe it was one of the major issues that openaddresses.uk ran in
> to,  see
>
https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/265440465?extension=pdf=embed=embed
> page 48 and following.


Uh oh, so does that mean the UK Postcode database is back closed/was never
really open? This is a little troubling for us in Canada, as Canada Post
has been pulling stunts like threatening a crowdsourced postal code (as we
call 'em) database with legal action. This suit has been withdrawn, but
leaves a whole mess of unanswered questions.

But back to the Region of Peel. I've cc'd Kevin, who is Peel's open data
champion and active as a mapper and on talk-ca. He asked me if there were
example requests you could maybe point to that have been used in the past.
I was thinking something roughly along the lines of:

OSM volunteers in Ontario wish to incorporate the following data sets
kindly provided by Region of Peel under the [full_name_of_Peel_licence]
licence:

1) building outlines for Caledon;
2) address points.

We seek permission to republish these data under the ODbL, as used by OSM.
We would like to have clarification that:

a) the licence termination on breach clause can be relaxed regarding
unlawful use. Once data are in OSM, we have no control over users'
application of the data; and
b) that Region of Peel can confirm that all rights to the open data sets
are held by the Region, and that no third party databases have been used to
derive the data sets.

Is that roughly what a request looks like? I know that the address points
are very likely developed internally by Peel (and there are no Postal Codes
included) but the building outlines may have been derived from third-party
LIDAR or orthophotos.

Best Wishes,
 Stewart
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Disclaimers of title in open licenses/OGL [was Re: Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)]

2016-09-09 Thread Luis Villa 
[Forking thread title so as to minimize noise for anyone who actually cares
about the Peel license ;)]

tl;dr: The problem in Robert's example is the UK government, not the
license. If real money were at stake for some reason, every well-advised
open licensor (including OSM under ODbL) would take exactly the same
position. Hopefully most will be nicer about fixing the problem than this
agency was, but the fix will be because of issues of reputation, or some
other legal obligation, not their license.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:45 AM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 September 2016 at 18:19, Luis Villa  wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the
> > "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to
> license"
> > language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is
> implicit in
> > all licenses - if there is third party material in a work that the open
> > licensor isn't authorized to license, then that material isn't licensed
> to
> > you, regardless of what the license says.
>
> Yes, but without that clause, the licensor is implicitly asserting
> that they do have the necessary rights to offer the licence, and if
> there did turn out to be problems later, the licensee would probably
> have some come-back on them.
>

Respectfully, I disagree. It is unlikely that a licensee using an open
license would have redress in this situation.

Most open licenses have a disclaimer that attempts to absolve the licensor
of liability in situations like this. In, for example, ODBL 1.0:

"Licensor specifically disclaims any and all implied warranties or
conditions of title [or] non-infringement..."

"Licensor is not liable for, and expressly excludes, all liability
for loss or damage however and whenever caused to anyone by any use
under this License..."

The effectiveness of such disclaimers may vary by jurisdiction—for example,
one commentator has suggested they may not be viable in the UK
.
But if they're a problem in OGL 1.0, they're also a problem in ODBL 1.0 and
just about every other open license.

[If what they actually claimed was that the material was "carved out"
(i.e., not licensed at all), so there was no liability even though UK law
says the disclaimer is ineffective... well, I'll just say I'm comfortable I
could find a UK lawyer to take that argument :)]

there doesn't seem to be any obligation on the
> licensor to point out that some parts of the dataset cannot actually be
> re-used under the stated licence.
>

For better or for worse, there is no obligation of that sort in any open
source license that I'm aware of, with the sole exception of a
patent-related obligation in MPL 1.0 Sec. 3.4(a). We took that out in MPL
2.0 ;)

Thoughtful open licensors address this problem by *voluntarily *creating
processes to vet IP and giving notice where there are issues. For example,
Eclipse and Apache have lots of IP vetting of new projects to avoid this
sort of problem (and I know of at least one case where it saved downstream
licensees where the license would not have done so). My understanding is
that Wikidata can't be used as an OSM source for similar reasons. And given
Robert's example, maybe the UK government should be pressed to do the same.
:)

If this sort of provenance issue is a real concern, OSM should push data
sources to document and review their processes, and perhaps consider
improving provenance data in the database directly (so that the problems
are easier to fix once identified). Just don't look to licenses as a
solution (or in this case, see OGL as the problem).

Hope that helps clarify-
Luis (IAAL, BIANYL)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Simon Poole 


Am 09.09.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
>
> There was a case in the UK where (IIRC) house price data was offered
> under the UK Open Government Licence (OGL). It turned out later that
> the addresses in it had been checked/normalised using a proprietary
> address database, and the licensor wasn't able to re-licence them.
> According to the OGL, it is still fine to offer the whole dataset
> under that licence, and there doesn't seem to be any obligation on the
> licensor to point out that some parts of the dataset cannot actually
> be re-used under the stated licence.
>
>
I beleive it was one of the major issues that openaddresses.uk ran in
to,  see
https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/265440465?extension=pdf=embed=embed
page 48 and following.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Simon Poole 
As Robert has pointed out: the difference is between taking the  licence
(OGL) as a licence to include stuff you can't licence :-) :-)  and the
normal case were the Licensor typically would not include material for
which they don't have the necessary rights except for honest mistakes
and fraud. Naturally in both cases you end up without a licence but
there is a bit of a difference in flavour. 

Now, I believe I can say this for the whole open data community, we tend
to be a bit happy go lucky about checking these things, but I hope OSM
is a bit better than most other projects.


Simon

Am 09.09.2016 um 19:19 schrieb Luis Villa:
> Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the
> "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to
> license" language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what
> is implicit in all licenses - if there is third party material in a
> work that the open licensor isn't authorized to license, then that
> material isn't licensed to you, regardless of what the license says.
>
> Luis
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:56 PM Simon Poole  > wrote:
>
>
> The additional terms are "a bit of" a problem, however might be
> surmountable if they are willing to give us a statement
> specifically for the inclusion in OSM (along the lines of that
> they agree that the inclusion of the data in OpenStreetMap and
> distribution on terms of an open and free licence fulfils the
> conditions).
>
> All variants of the OGL have a further issue in that you actually
> have to verify that the Licensor has the necessary rights to
> licence -all- the material in their dataset to you on these terms.
> This might seem like a theoretical hurdle invented by me, alas it
> is not, as some of our UK colleagues can testify.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 08.09.2016 um 21:05 schrieb Stewart Russell:
>> Hi - this came up on talk-ca, and I want to make sure I'm not
>> being too restrictive.
>>
>> Licence is a near clone of the UK OGL 1.0. Full text is here:
>> http://opendata.peelregion.ca/terms-of-use.aspx
>> Like many Canadian municipalities, they've added their own secret
>> sauce, unfortunately. In the "You must" section, they added:
>>
>> [You must] ensure that Your Use of the Information does not
>> breach or infringe upon any applicable laws
>>
>> The OGL has automatic termination on breach, and most versions
>> don't include this clause.
>>
>> Would this term potentially add complications for anyone
>> downstream using the data - say to plan a public protest that
>> authorities deem illegal?
>>
>> The Regional Municipality of Peel's open data person is an active
>> OSM participant, and they say that it might take time for
>> permission to use the data under a more OSM-friendly library.
>>
>> Your advice greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>>  Stewart
>>
>> -- 
>> http://scruss.com/blog/ - 73 de VA3PID
>>
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 9 September 2016 at 18:19, Luis Villa  wrote:
> Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the
> "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license"
> language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit in
> all licenses - if there is third party material in a work that the open
> licensor isn't authorized to license, then that material isn't licensed to
> you, regardless of what the license says.

Yes, but without that clause, the licensor is implicitly asserting
that they do have the necessary rights to offer the licence, and if
there did turn out to be problems later, the licensee would probably
have some come-back on them. With the clause, it effectively absolves
the licensor of any responsibility for making sure that the licence is
valid for the licencee's use.

There was a case in the UK where (IIRC) house price data was offered
under the UK Open Government Licence (OGL). It turned out later that
the addresses in it had been checked/normalised using a proprietary
address database, and the licensor wasn't able to re-licence them.
According to the OGL, it is still fine to offer the whole dataset
under that licence, and there doesn't seem to be any obligation on the
licensor to point out that some parts of the dataset cannot actually
be re-used under the stated licence.

Normally it's fine as the stuff being licensed is obviously the
licensor's data. But sometimes there are proprietary databases that
get mixed in, so you have to be a bit careful. (Addresses and any GIS
data are particular issues in the UK.) I briefly tried to convince the
UK OGL's authors of the problem with this clause (suggesting they
should add an obligation on the licensor to point out any
un-licensable parts) but I didn't manage to get very far.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Luis Villa 
Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the
"third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license"
language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit
in all licenses - if there is third party material in a work that the open
licensor isn't authorized to license, then that material isn't licensed to
you, regardless of what the license says.

Luis

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:56 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> The additional terms are "a bit of" a problem, however might be
> surmountable if they are willing to give us a statement specifically for
> the inclusion in OSM (along the lines of that they agree that the inclusion
> of the data in OpenStreetMap and distribution on terms of an open and free
> licence fulfils the conditions).
>
> All variants of the OGL have a further issue in that you actually have to
> verify that the Licensor has the necessary rights to licence -all- the
> material in their dataset to you on these terms. This might seem like a
> theoretical hurdle invented by me, alas it is not, as some of our UK
> colleagues can testify.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 08.09.2016 um 21:05 schrieb Stewart Russell:
>
> Hi - this came up on talk-ca, and I want to make sure I'm not being too
> restrictive.
>
> Licence is a near clone of the UK OGL 1.0. Full text is here:
> http://opendata.peelregion.ca/terms-of-use.aspx
> Like many Canadian municipalities, they've added their own secret sauce,
> unfortunately. In the "You must" section, they added:
>
> [You must] ensure that Your Use of the Information does not breach or
> infringe upon any applicable laws
>
> The OGL has automatic termination on breach, and most versions don't
> include this clause.
>
> Would this term potentially add complications for anyone downstream using
> the data - say to plan a public protest that authorities deem illegal?
>
> The Regional Municipality of Peel's open data person is an active OSM
> participant, and they say that it might take time for permission to use the
> data under a more OSM-friendly library.
>
> Your advice greatly appreciated.
>
> Best Wishes,
>  Stewart
>
> --
> http://scruss.com/blog/ - 73 de VA3PID
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing 
> listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk