Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike
licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a
stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works
under a non-free license.
I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the
derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be
stronger than what CC does.
The way I see it is that there are two ways to play.
If you want to be fully open then you distribute your new work in data form
so that it is easy for others to build on further. You distribute it as a
Derivative Database, and under the exact same terms you received the input data.
In that case the licence does not (or should not in my view) put any obstacles
in your way. You are giving others exactly the same rights you yourself
received, so you can just get on with your work and distribute the result
without further hassle.
However, for those who don't want to be quite so open, the ODbL has made a
concession by allowing the concept of a Produced Work. Your resulting work
does not have to be licensed under any particular terms. However, if you want
to take advantage of this option, then it is your responsibility to publish the
intermediate databases you used.
The one thing that CC does allow which ODbL may or may not (depending on the
legal definition of 'database') is to make a derived work which is much simpler
in structure and publish it under the same terms you received the data, without
disclosing anything further. For example, making a human-viewable map image
from the computer-readable OSM map. I would argue that this can be done too
in the ODbL case, by publishing your map tiles as Derivative Databases under
the ODbL, since I've not seen anything to suggest that a raster image file is
not also a database in law. But opinion differs on this point.
I believe your example of a route planner producing directions is similar here:
it is a much simpler work ('turn left, then right') derived from the larger
map database. But certainly a set of directions is itself a database, as anyone
who programmed LOGO knows.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view, is that it be interoperable with the ODbL. Firstly so that those who are building applications using OSM data today would be able to keep doing what they are doing even if OSM started using CC4 in future, and secondly so that any such switchover would not have to delete any non-compliant data (such as imports where permission has been granted for ODbL but not for CC). This is something that Open Data Commons would have to take part in too, since Creative Commons cannot create an ODbL-to-CC migration path on their own. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Kai Krueger kakrueger@... writes: We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is legal and is not covered by the share alike clause of the license. That's a big presumption. I would have expected that remapping would be done as a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA data at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes: If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work, would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example) use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple of days? More to the point, would OSMF be happy for mappers to do the reverse operation, using Google Maps as a guide to where to go out and resurvey? If OSMF makes a statement that verifying data doesn't create a derived work, it must do so only on the basis of justifiable legal opinions, which are publicly reviewable. Anything else would not be a statement of belief about the law, but a special exemption or extra permission outside the normal licence, which cannot be done without a 2/3 vote. If OSMF does decide, after careful consideration of the legal evidence, that verifying data does not create a derived work under copyright or related rights, then a necessary consequence is that OSM mappers will be able to make use of other maps to verify their work, just as UMP will be able to use OSM. All this goes away if the OSM map continues to be published under CC-BY-SA in parallel with ODbL. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions. They are additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone else's use of the data. However, it is not in the spirit of the community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions - particularly not if they are specific to one user, which looks like favouritism. So I suggest, firstly, any extra permission granted should be to everyone on equal terms or not at all; and secondly, if you believe that the permission notice is necessary as an addition to the ODbL (rather than just a clarification of what is already the legal situation) then its text needs to be approved by the OSMF board and a 2/3 vote of active contributors. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could be public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple majority board decision for that. Not so - in the meantime, information might have been added to the map which is not compatible with CC-BY-SA 2.0. Recall the wording of the contributor terms and the clarification given by the LWG: contributions have to be compatible with the *current* licence, whatever that may be. That means that right now, users are able to upload contributions which (because of rights held by third parties) are usable under CC-BY-SA 2.0 only - and that is why 'odbl=clean' and 'contributor_terms=clean' are not quite the same thing. If the licence is changed, then from that point onwards it will be possible to upload contributions which are usable only under the newer licence. This is one reason why dual licensing under both CC-BY-SA and ODbL is a good idea - it makes sure that, under the contributor terms, new contributions to the map are usable under both licences. This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power. That's a whole nother discussion. Personally, I would advocate splitting OSMF in two: one organization which manages the servers, holds the openstreetmap.org domain name and any related naming rights such as trademarks, and performs most of the other OSMF functions. The second organization would exist only to hold rights in the map database and sublicense it under ODbL/DbCL or other licences. This split would add some useful checks and balances - among other things it would prevent control of the servers being used to force through licence changes. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
mike@... writes: Any chance of you changing your decline now, that is the easiest way of decreasing deletions? I am still hopeful of finding a way forward that will mean the OSM data can continue to be distributed under a licence that I would consider free and open. Although Creative Commons or public domain would be ideal, they are not the only choices. In the light of the legal reports I have shared with the LWG, I hope to persuade the Open Data Commons people that the EULA-like parts of the ODbL (whereby it tries to limit users by contract to give up rights that they might otherwise have) may not be necessary - at least for OSM. I know that even on the ODC mailing lists this is not a universally liked feature of the ODbL. (I had also asked the lawyers to investigate whether this contract-law part of the ODbL might not in fact weaken the enforceability of share-alike, since breach of copyright is much easier to show and has much stronger remedies (for our purpose) than breach of contract - so you really do not want the courts to start interpreting your licence as a contract. Unfortunately they decided that because the OSM map data was within the scope of copyright, the question of the ODbL's enforceability was not important, so they did not answer it.) I still feel that starting to use the ODbL does not automatically imply stopping the use of CC licensing, and that it would be better to offer both the old and new licences, as Wikipedia did with their licence change. As you know I discussed this with the LWG at a meeting a few months ago (although not all members were present). Since we now have a commitment from Creative Commons to release a new version of CC-BY-SA next year, it would make sense to defer the decision of whether to abandon CC altogether until then. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
I think the test must be the same as for any other data which OSMF does not have permission to use. If a mapper added a node by copying from Google Maps, but then another mapper moved it to a different position using a permitted data source, is it okay to keep that node in the database? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
A common way to adjust a node position is to move it halfway between the old one and the new one. For example, if there is already a way on the map traced from GPS but you have a new GPS trace for it which is a bit different, it would be unwise to adjust it to exactly fit your new trace. But you may expect to improve accuracy a bit if you adjust it to about halfway between the old and new positions. Similarly a node such as a bus stop may have its position tweaked to somewhere in between where it was and the new observed position. So I don't think you can assume that when a node is moved its position information is 'cleaned' somehow. The new position as often as not is derived from the old position. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Richard Weait richard@... writes: We consider that the creation of an object and its id to be a system action rather than individual creative contribution. However, 'the creation of an object and its id' never occurs by itself. At a minimum, you create an object with id and lat/lon, and that location data is part of the OSM map. The next version of the node, even if its position has been adjusted, is likely to be derived from this data. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Simon Poole simon@... writes: If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of other ways) then he is doing exactly that, That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a way. Not replacing it. If you take an existing street and adjust its position it is hard to argue that you have taken a completely clean-room approach to doing so, not using the existing geometry at all. The existing geometry is there on your screen while you are editing! Yes, there are some cases where you might totally ignore the existing geometry (perhaps because it has been messed up by a newcomer hitting the wrong buttons in Potlatch) and recreate it wholesale. But those are a small minority. just because he is reusing an existing object (pre-numbered sheet remember) to mark a new interpolated position doesn't mean it is a derived work Agreed - that in itself is not enough. If a mapper grabbed some existing node from the database and removed its location data entirely (perhaps taking it from a global stock of 'spare nodes' kept in the Pacific ocean) then it would clearly not be derived. But why do that when you can just click to create a new node? If the mapper starts with a node that's already in roughly the right place and just adjusts it a little bit, then the new position is derived from the old one. Now if you wish to state that interpolation itself creates a derived work, please argue that. By interpolation I was referring to the practice of taking two paths (be they two GPS traces, one GPS trace and one existing way on the map, a way on the map and a path visible in an aerial photograph, etc) and combining them to make a new path which is roughly halfway between the two. For example if mapping from GPS plus an existing out-of-copyright map you may trace a way which is about halfway between your GPS trace and what you see on the old map - since neither of them by itself is entirely accurate. Doing this makes the new path derived from both the old one and the new one. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Simon Poole simon@... writes: If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going to go, so what is your point again? Are we not talking about the following situation: - mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way - mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating some new nodes - mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes In this case the third edit would have to be reverted because the new position of the nodes is still based on work contributed by mapper B, even though they have been moved since he created them. You are using derived in a common language sense, please argue why this is a derived work in the IP/legal sense (choose any jurisdiction you would like). That is a question for lawyers. I do not know whether it is a derived work under copyright law or sui generis database rights. Normally the approach of the project is to not import data from sources that do not have permission, and if it gets into the database, to delete it (reverting the changeset) as soon as possible. We don't get into the business of judging whether we might get away with including it anyway, because we are not lawyers. So we have to use the common-sense judgement of whether one piece of work builds on another. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Sorry, I appreciate your taking the time to go through the arguments on this but I think I have said all I have to say about node positions. I'll let others decide whether what I wrote makes sense. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
mike@... writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other
conversations.
Mike, in that case I would ask you to apply the 'Google Maps test'. If some
map data were entered by copying from a third party who did not give permission,
but then edited in good faith, how much of the data needs to be unpicked?
In the past OSMF has taken a very cautious approach to this, which I believe
is the right one.
If after careful consideration you do formulate a policy ('the LWG declares that
creating a node is not a creative operation, so it can be kept as long as it has
been moved by somebody else afterwards', or whatever you decide), then it should
also be applied to such third-party-copyright situations going forward.
Originally it was promised that no big deletion would go ahead if it would cause
too much damage to the OSM data. Is that still the case and if so who is tasked
with deciding whether to pull the switch?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: I am experimenting with using the tag odbl=clean for this, I guess ct=clean would be better since there may be data which is usable under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. (Recall that the CTs require the content must be distributable under the current licence, which means CC-BY-SA - this was clarified a few months ago by the LWG I believe. Of course in the majority of cases CT-able data is also ODbL-able.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: I guess ct=clean would be better since there may be data which is usable under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to remap it now, right? Maybe so, but it's not shown by the usual CT status maps. odbl=clean (or perhaps dbcl=clean?) would be a further tag to add in addition to ct=clean. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - publishable memo for USA
I asked two attorneys in the USA to look into the question of whether the OSM map data falls under copyright. Please see earlier messages in this thread for details of how the lawyers were chosen and the question asked. They produced a written report which they asked me not to distribute publicly because of attorney-client privilege. I have sent a copy of that report to the LWG and the OSM board, and I am happy to share a copy with anyone who'd like to see it, but I think it is necessary to have some results which can be fully public. To this end the lawyers have produced a public version which does not mention OSM by name, although the issues addressed are those relevant to our project. You can see the report at http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - publishable memo for USA
Simon Poole simon@... writes: In summary I don't quite see how the report changes anything, summarized it states: a) maps are copyrightable in the US (not that we didn't know that) b) online maps are copyrightable in the US (we assumed that too) c) you could make a case that the underlying data of an online map is copyrightable (which we assume to some point for style files and similar... for the actually geographic data it is probably just speculation) I think it's rather stronger than you could make a case. While the report is couched in conservative lawyer-speak, my understanding from speaking to the two attorneys is that it's pretty clear: the underlying data of the map falls within copyright. If you like, I could send you the full report which addresses OSM and the ODbL specifically? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
Eugene Alvin Villar seav80@... writes: Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, every digital file is a database of bytes Yes, I suggest that legally speaking this is likely to be the case. Certainly any digital file that is in a documented, structured file format with certain fields in certain positions has just as strong a claim to being a 'database' as, say, the OSM planet file. The European definition of a database is a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. Individual pixels comprising a typical image (say a PNG map tile) are not independent works. Each pixel cannot stand on its own and aren't useful unless considered together with its neighboring pixels to form an image. That makes some sense but you are implicitly taking the individual pixel as the level of granularity. If you took the OSM planet file as your example once again, you could state that neither the individual co-ordinate numbers like 50.1234, nor individual tag strings like 'highway', have any independent existence. They must stand together with other data items to form a complete object such as a node, which even then may not have much meaning without others. Richard F. noted that audiovisual works... as such are not databases. I imagine it is an open question whether this means photographs and other pictorial images, and whether it applies to images with a defined schema such as heatmaps (which can equally well be considered as a database of co-ordinates mapped to values) or to diagrams and maps with a defined schema and a strict correspondence between pixel co-ordinates and geographical position. (I also note that as such is a weasel phrase which European law may wiggle through, as with the exclusion of computer programs as such from patentability.) In general I think that introducing the concept of database into licensing causes more problems than it solves, and tends to muddle more than it clarifies, but that's just my opinion. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Community norms (was: ODbL and publishing source data)
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: I am interested in exploring this further with the aim of finding good community norms, nailing down the problem cases, and making the introduction of ODbL for OSM a success. I think you have to be careful about going too far with community norms. They may give the misleading impression that copyright holders have endorsed them so that they are legal statements of what you can do with the map, but this is not the case. Also, the contributor terms permit distribution under ODbL, not 'ODbL with community norms', so it would not be within OSMF's mandate under the CTs to introduce additional material to the licence, however well- intentioned. Community norms can serve to narrow the permission (as in: although X may be permissible according to the letter of the law, we don't feel it fits the spirit) but they cannot state anything with authority where the underlying legal situation is unclear. More to the point, would it not be better to fix up ambiguities in a new version of the ODbL? Migrating to it later would be pretty painless since the licence is forward-compatible. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community norms
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: OSMF is the holder of the database rights; while OSMF may not be able to state anything with authority they can certainly say we guarantee that we will not sue you if you adhere to the following. Which is good enough. I think that database right is only a small part of the picture, copyright being at least as important (if the legal advice I got from Francis Davey relating to European law is correct). Note that there is sui generis database right, and separate from that there is database copyright. Database copyright is not owned by the OSMF. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - initial results
In the USA the only two lawyers who are doing the work are Cathy Gellis and Jon Rubens. Although they often work together, they are at separate firms. Cathy Gellis was recommended to me by Francis Davey, the barrister investigating in England. He in turn was mentioned by LWG members, and has popped up on this list. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - initial results
Rob Myers rob@... writes: In the US, the two lawyers found that the OSM map data is copyrightable. They mentioned the explicit inclusion of maps in copyright law But geodata is not a map, and the copyright on the database is not the copyright on its contents. As I understood it, the precedents they found showed that copyright does cover the geodata contained in the database, and is not dependent on having a paper map or the difference between database and contents. However I didn't have time to go over these matters in depth. If the written report doesn't address your concern, would you like to join in a conference call with the legal team so you can put it to them directly? I expect I could arrange this. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Robert Kaiser kairo@... writes: Well, IIRC that's exactly one of the points of the CTs, granting the OSMF the right to allow exemptions in some cases. Although the OSMF is sub-licensing the map and so could sub-license under any terms (including 'ODbL with the following list of clarifications'), in the contributor terms the OSMF promised to use a particular set of licences - and the CTs don't allow the OSMF to issue amendments or clarifications to the licences. So, in order for some clarification such as the exact meaning of 'produced work' to be adopted, it still has to be agreed by every contributor. (Or else, a 2/3 vote of active contributors would allow 'ODbL with clarifications' to be used as the official licence.) It's all a bit muddy. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Tobias Knerr osm@... writes: * Inadequate protection * CC-BY-SA might not work for data. OSM data is not currently abused in a manner that threatens the project, and that might never even happen. Nevertheless, it seems wise to make sure that we can either prevent this or at least react when it happens. It is true that, by continuing to offer the database under CC-BY-SA, we would no longer /preemptively/ address this potential issue. I have commissioned a law firm in the UK, and one in the US, to investigate the extent to which this may be the case. I have asked them to look at whether the OSM map data falls under copyright, and additionally whether the contract- law provisions in the ODbL add anything to enforceability. The objective is to get analysis which can be shared with the whole community, rather than privileged legal advice which must remain confidential. This includes disclosing how the law firm was chosen and the questions asked. Making contributors agree to the CT gives us the ability to react *if* legal weaknesses of the CC-BY-SA are actually abused at some future point, though, and I believe that this is sufficient. Personally I agree with this (as with everything else you wrote) but some prefer a more aggressive approach. -- Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License compatibility clarification
Jonas Häggqvist rasher@... writes: Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA? Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use it (in the CT/ODbL future)? If this were possible, then there would be no need for any relicensing exercise. The data released under CC-BY-SA would be the existing OSM map, and it could just be used directly with CT/ODbL. The fact that this is not happening shows that, as generally believed, it is not possible to accept CC-BY-SA licensed data under a CT/ODbL regime. -- Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Re-using ODbL for other, similiar project?
Please also consider using a simple permissive licence for your project such as CC0. You might find that the extra complexity of a big licence such as the ODbL is not worth it. It's your call - I just want to point out that alternatives are available (many of which are compatible with the ODbL for those using your data). The Creative Commons project also has several licences which they encourage as being suitable for data as well as for creative works. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Re-using ODbL for other, similiar project?
Willy willy@... writes: Question 1: May I copy and re-use the ODbL text for my project? Is the license itself free? Yes, I believe so, although I do not see an explicit statement on http://www.opendatacommons.org/ or in the licence text. Actually I inherited the database after the creator passed away some time ago. Back then he told me that all data in that database is either from free sources or had been collected by contributors. However, he neither had/demanded something like ODbL's Terms of Contribution nor archived the cotribution postings. So I have no objective evidence for the data source. I don't believe the ODbL has any 'terms of contribution'. Those are a separate idea thought up by the OSM project. But yes, in general it would be a good idea to check that you have permission to release your project under this licence. Question 2: Under those circumstances, would you recommend not to add the data to OSM? That's not really a legal question but an organizational one. Note, however, that just releasing your project under ODbL might not be enough to allow its incorporation into the OSM project, which has its own set of contributor terms. You might also consider releasing as public domain. -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: 3. OSMF to choose a new license that is free and open, present it to OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the 2/3 of mappers hurdle can hardly be called allow the board to tweak the license. The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Of course the OSMF would never do anything like that... -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
Grant Slater openstreetmap@... writes: - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the majority of the contributors the stupid evil OSMF you propose would have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS before they could run such a rigged system. You're right, it is a fanciful and unrealistic example, at least from the point of view of keeping a running OSM project with contributors. It would be a way to get a static copy of the map under any terms wanted. However, what I hope people realize is that these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments are the same ones used to assert that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, any company could just copy it, and so on, despite not a shred of evidence that this has happened. I wish people would apply a more realistic perspective and 'assume good faith' a little bit more in these matters too. All I intended to demonstrate is that no amount of legalese and boilerplate in the licence or contributor terms will block out all possible abuses, so we should lighten up a bit. But you're right and I apologize for the unwarranted snarkiness. -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
Matt Amos zerebubuth@... writes: i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from Creative Commons itself! I would be interested to read that. My understanding is that Creative Commons have affirmed what has demonstrably been the case all along - that CC-BY-SA certainly can be used for data, as OSM is doing now. They noted that it would not magically extend copyright to things not covered by copyright. That is quite true, but it does not mean that map data is not covered by copyright. If we have a legal opinion stating that, it would be wonderful to publish it now and clean up the whole mess. (It would also greatly help with people using external data sources, if we knew that copyright does not apply.) -- 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 are not full copyright assignment
Matt Amos zerebubuth@... writes: also the VP of science commons did say [2]: I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of share-alike you apply to your data. I've got a download of the OSM data dump. I can repost it, right now, as public domain. Thanks, that's interesting. Although he didn't in fact carry out his threat... -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
I don't think that edit wars to deliberately change the licence status of bits of map are the way forward - for either side. It's just as unacceptable from the pro-ODbL camp as from the pro-CC camp. However, I can understand that if mappers believe that large amounts of data will be deleted (which is a self-fulfilling prophecy to some extent) then they will want to recreate it. One way might be to create a second, 'ODbL-pure' database where there is full licence to rip out anything from contributors who don't support the ODbL change. Then if this version of the map becomes better than the current OSM it can replace it. Indeed, that could be a gradual changeover rather than a big bang. None of this reduces the need to reach out to all contributors, whichever side of the licensing debate they are on, and for all sides to find a constructive way forward rather than hardening positions and seeing who blinks first. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license for
Kolossos tim.alder@... writes: My question is now under which license or terms we should ask for these list so that they later reusable for OpenStreetMap. Would a CC-BY-SA ok or should it be ODBL? My understanding of the new terms is that neither would be acceptable. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes: The ODbL definition of database implicitly contains a definition of contents, namely the things that are arranged in a systematic etc way. What the contents are will depend on the terms of OSMF's licence, I think the 'contents' must depend on the nature of the work being considered and not on the licence. For some works, such as a database of photographs, it is clear what is the 'contents' and what the database which contains them. I don't think that distinction is clear for the OSM map data, because the individual data items (such as latitude numbers, or names of things) are almost meaningless considered separately. So my question is really about how the law and the licence text apply to OSM in particular. The ODbL is a general-purpose licence for anything that may be considered a 'database' having 'contents'; the question is whether a given work can be considered in that framework. For a photo album, the answer is yes; for an individual photo, surely not (it would be stretching things to consider each square pixel as a separate item of 'contents'). The OSM map falls somewhere between these two extremes. The example you gave was that of the user diaries table, which contains prose written by OSM contributors. It would certainly be a good example of a split between database and contents. However, it's not in fact part of the map data which is proposed to be distributed under ODbL / DbCL. So, in the UK an entire table (and certainly the entire database), considered as a table, would attract database right and one or two forms of copyright (probably only the one, maybe none), but some of the data in the database might attract its own copyright. That copyright would not be licensed under ODbL which expressly does not deal with the licence terms of the contents of the database. This does make sense, but it makes it important to find out exactly what these 'contents' are. The ODbL text is no help because it is general-purpose and doesn't know about map-specific terms or OSM-specific data such as nodes and areas. Problem: what if I take a map and enter points on it into the OSM database? [...] However the map is not (as a map) contents of the database (in ODbL terms) because it is not individually accessible. Ah, so perhaps this is the test; if an object can be taken out individually then it is considered 'contents'. However, this is problematic; given the file of map data, whether something is individually accessible depends entirely on the computer program used to manipulate the file. At the extreme a whole city might be individually accessible through some interface. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes: But it's possible that the 'contents', which are covered by the DbCL rather than the ODbL, might be something meaningful. Yes, indeed. And who knows? If I understand you rightly, you're saying that the 'contents' referred to here is not meant to be something meaningful in the context of OSM, but rather a catch-all term for whatever a court might find to be 'database contents' in the future. That seems a little bit dangerous since you can reasonably argue that almost everything in OSM is 'database contents', with the 'database' itself providing very little. (Yes, even if you remember the difference between a database and a database management system.) Once you start saying that the map can be divided into 'database' and 'contents', you naturally invite the question of where the dividing line is. It might have been better not to muddy the waters in this way and just say that the whole thing - whether considered by law as database, as database contents, or anything else - is licensed under the ODbL. Otherwise (and I realize this is a far-fetched scenario, but no more outlandish than some of the others thrown about here) we run the risk of someone taking the whole OSM map data but then arguing in court that what they took is 'database contents' and therefore they are entitled to use it under the DbCL. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
The plan to change the licence is to use ODbL for the 'database' and DbCL for the 'database contents'. Are these 'contents' the same as the 'Your Contents' referred to by the CTs - or is that a different kind of contents? Don't the CTs also need to assign rights over 'Your Database' as well as 'Your Contents', since it is likely that even one single contributor would produce effectively a database of map data, just covering a smaller area of the globe? Or is an individual changeset considered to be pure 'contents' and only when it is combined with other changesets becomes part of a 'database'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes: Put more simply Your Contents is anything you upload. contents in the ODbL has a very different sense. Thanks for clarifying. I think it's unfortunate that the same word was used for both. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Acceptable licences and splitting account edits
James Livingston lists@... writes: Using my account I have added data that is under various licences, some of which will and some of which won't be compatible with ODbL. To be able to keep any of it, I'll presumably need to split my changesets up. If Francis Davey's answer in another thread on this list is correct http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.legal/5883 then you do not need to do that. All that's needed is to agree that the data is allowed under the current licence terms (i.e. CC-BY-SA). So you can click Accept to the 1.2.4 contributor terms anyway, if you wish to support the change. It would be useful to have some way of labelling which changesets are ODbL- compatible and which are not. I guess that is a separate problem which would need to be addressed if and when there was a change of licence. -- 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
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can actually make a reliable statement expressing the community interpretation of certain points of the license, Thinking about it, I am not sure this is the case. If the OSMF has an agreement with mappers that it will distribute the map under a certain licence, that must mean the accepted legal meaning of the licence, determined ultimately by the courts. It cannot mean the licence under whatever interpretation OSMF chooses. If one mapper disagrees that the licence permits something, but the OSMF issues a statement that it does, then one of the two is wrong (for a particular jurisdiction). And if the OSMF is the one that's wrong, then the OSMF is in breach of its agreement with the mapper where it promised to use a particular licence. There's also the moral issue that changes or clarifications in interpretation of the licence are effectively a change of licence, and should be agreed by the community. So, while giving the OSMF the ability to make definitive statements about the intent or meaning or enforceability of the licence might be thought a good thing, it would need to be explicitly stated in the CTs. The current proposed 1.2 version doesn't. -- 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
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
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
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
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
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] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is not directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: [OS OpenData licence] But that isn't a problem now. Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state Does that mean it's still incompatible with version 1.0 of the contributor terms? -- 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
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Data that is not fully relicensable, i.e. comes with strings attached, will always be second-class data in OSM because it carries with it the potential to cause problems. At the very least it would have to be flagged as such. Giving everyone the opportunity to add such second-class data at will (and risking that others who would normally contribute first-class data build on second-class data and thus produce something of lesser use to the project) seems a bad choice to me - worse, actually, than doing our best to explain to everybody why we can only accept first-class data, and wave a sad goodbye to those who won't play. The OSM project only publishes data 'with strings attached'. I think we should not demand from others more than we are willing to do ourselves. -- 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
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
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] 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] 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: The definition of active contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts (or require that any newly created account must agree to the new policy) and do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors (electorate). While a theoretical, I simply do not see it happening. That is reassuring. I don't see it as realistic either, and I hope it won't be attempted. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Or OSMF could simply sell off the servers, have a grand board meeting on the Maledives with all expenses paid, and declare bankruptcy afterwards. Oh wait, they can do that even now. I do rather agree with you that trying to nail down and exclude all the nefarious and evil things that might be done by the OSMF is a pointless endeavour. It is the same kind of paranoia that brought us the overcomplicated and legalistic ODbL licence. It probably makes more sense to state things like 'there should be a vote of active contributors before any licence change' or 'the OSMF is there to support the project but not control it' as community expectations or a kind of 'constitution', rather than trying to put them into the CTs or other legal documents. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is free and open. I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority (perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too* often these days. So I think that free and open is more like share-alike in being a term that is open to interpretation rather than a factual property. -- 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 Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL
I believe the question is whether the OSMF should have special rights which
are not available to others.
If you look again at the explanation of the OSMF's role:
It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not the
same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own the
OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the
data. Anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data using the same
or different software. In this respect the Foundation is an organisation
that performs fundraising in order to provides servers to host the project.
Its role is to support the project, not to control it.
A key point is that 'anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data'.
If that is so, then the contributor terms should not need to mention OSMF
specifically - not unless the OSMF is trying to gain rights which others lack.
If a particular licence, be it CC-BY-SA, ODbL or whatever, is considered
suitable for the project then it must grant enough permissions to host a
website with the map, make changes, distribute them further and so on. That
being so, it is not necessary to have additional rights assignment to OSMF or
anyone else.
Some may consider this viewpoint to be quite impractical. However, it is how
the project is working now, and seems to be successful.
I've seen this point discussed many times before. The CT's do not
transfer ownership.
Technically this is true, but the grant of rights is so broad ('any action
restricted by copyright') and the limitations of 'any free and open licence'
and a vote of 'active contributors' are so loosely specified, that it amounts
to almost the same thing in practice.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on our terms. Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy. Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never do such a thing, but in theory it is possible. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Database copyright arises when the database is the author's own intellectual creation. That means that some design or creativity has to have gone into the database - it can't simply be an assemblage of facts. Database right arises when there is a substantial investment. It focuses on work not creativity. Lots of work in making a database won't get you copyright but may get you database right. It is much more likely that OSMF attracts database right than database copyright. Thanks for clarifying this. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents (was: Best license for future tiles?)
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's content. Database definition as per the ODbL (definition modelled on EU Database Directive 96/9/EC): “Database” – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License. That would apply to anything created from OSM, wouldn't it? Even a printed map is certainly arranged in a systematic and methodical way. Anything substantial is governed by the ODbL otherwise DbCL. See the guideline on substantial here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline Thanks, this is something concrete. Less than 100 features - you're in the clear. More than that (with some exceptions) - considered substantial and must be produced under ODbL. I still don't quite get what the 'contents' are, though, and how some 'contents' can ever be considered in isolation from the 'database' that holds them. Even if you extract only half a square mile of the map you still have a database, albeit a smaller one. Even if you only want a list of all coffee shops you still have a database. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@... writes: Amusingly enough, I don't know of any map providers using copyrights to protect their data. All map providers use copyright to protect their data. Look at any map online or offline and you will see a copyright notice, for example Map data (c) 2010 Europa Technologies, Google, PPWK, Tele Atlas Perhaps you mean that they don't use only copyright but also assert every right that they possibly can, including database rights. This is quite true. Usually a company's legal team will advise them to grab everything, and even to add additional restrictions not backed by any law. (Even if they are struck down in court, you're still no worse off than if you hadn't given it a try.) Certainly the database right exists in some countries and we need to license it. That doesn't of itself justify trying to export it to countries which have (wisely in my opinion) decided not to enact such a right. As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright protection since 1997 Not quite. A database may attract either database right, copyright or both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right) is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold across Europe (own intellectual creation). Thanks for clarifying this. Does this mean, then, that every country which has a database right also has database copyright? (Perhaps there are some countries outside Europe which hold databases to be protectable via sui generis right but not via copyright.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: A database may attract either database right, copyright or both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right) is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold across Europe (own intellectual creation). Does this mean, then, that every country which has a database right also has database copyright? No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in Europe - is that so? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: To answer some of the questions raised by my comment (and not just this one). The sui generis database right exists only in the EU and the EEA. All countries with the sui generis database right have harmonised the threshold for database copyright as I have explained. Thanks. My followup question - which is not quite so much a question of pure fact, and addressed not to you but to the list in general - is that if database copyright applies wherever database right does, why not use copyright alone? If I've misunderstood what 'database copyright' means, and it's not as strong as ordinary copyright, please correct me. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new licences and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee beyond doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay. For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one. If, however, you intend to protect our data by putting it under a share-alike data, then any additional license you add weakens that protection. It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' come from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I, too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on? Shouldn't we stop adding more legalese and just focus on transitioning OSM to PD or attribution-only? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Simon Ward si...@... writes:
I’d like to see all mandatory “agreements” to the CTs so far to be
disregarded, and mandatory agreement to the CTs be removed for new
sign‐ups. All users may fairly be informed about the licensing options,
and where they can indicate their preference. At this point we
determine what the level of support for the licence+CT change is, and if
and only if we have overall support for the licence+CT change we change
the sign up terms to reflect it.
See the LWG minutes from October 26th
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk:
- Referendum proposal. We are still not going to firmly reject/accept yet but
are doing nothing active to organise it. Our position remains that it does not
cleary help us change the license.
This appears to say that the important thing is to change the licence - which
has already been decided - and what matters is to push that through. So a
vote is unlikely to be held unless it is sure to produce the outcome the LWG
wants!
I agree with you that the OSMF should remain strictly even-handed in this,
not favouring one side or the other ('we are changing the licence', 'please
follow this link to review and accept the new contributor terms'), and the right
order is to first find out what support there is for the licence+CT proposal
(as well as other proposals such as public domain, which have never had a fair
hearing) and only then make the decision. I also agree that the OSMF have
confused 'supporting the process' with 'supporting the licence change'.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents (was: Best license for future tiles?)
80n 80n...@... writes: The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary people. I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database' versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in particular. Does anybody? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Anthony o...@... writes: So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, ...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, Well, depends on what you mean by that. MapQuest certainly can (physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the bottom of the screen saying this map tile is released under CC-BY-SA. Right, and I could photocopy today's Financial Times and put the same notice on it, but that's not what I mean by 'can' or 'cannot'. And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing so. Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing so. Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing (etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA. On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA, if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL. Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here disagree with.) You are merging two separate events into one when you talk about distributing a recording under CC-BY, distributing a recording, and licensing the recording under CC-BY. The ODbL explicitly allows the former. But it is actually silent about the latter. (It says that you can't sublicense the score under CC-BY, but it says nothing about whether or not you can license the recording under CC-BY.) Ah - so although you are authorized to distribute produced works, those who receive them may not be authorized to distribute them further. This may be the crux of the issue. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say* you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY. I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM. As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents'. Could you explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they differ from the 'database' itself? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial extract of data. You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works that way and see if OSMF sue me. Sure - but isn't the supposed advantage of the ODbL/DbCL setup that it makes it clearer what is and isn't allowed? As far as I can tell it tends to make things murkier and more clouded by legalese. That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new licences and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee beyond doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: I misunderstood your objection. My understanding of the current policy is that a contributor does permit OSMF to use a different (future) licence. That is the reason for the perpetual licence. OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too. So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to add third-party data released under anything less than fully-permissive terms, even if it happened to be compatible with the licence OSM uses at present. NB: I don't have a view on this at all and am not trying to influence policy. No, me neither. (Well I do have a view, which is that granting extra rights to a privileged body such as the OSMF is a bad idea, and we should all simply license our contributions under an agreed share-alike licence - but that is not part of this discussion.) I'm just trying to winkle out exactly what the proposed CTs are intended to mean. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Consider this case: someone wants to use OpenStreetMap data augmented with POIs from a closed source in a routing application. This routing application is then used within the company for which it is built, for commercial purposes. Do the POIs need to be released under CC-BY-SA? It depends on whether the company needs permission to use the OSM data in their own routing program. Whatever program you use with OSM, the data will inevitably be mixed and interacted with data from other sources, even if that other data is just the program text or routing configuration. We normally accept that doing this kind of processing does not require additional permission from the copyright holder, otherwise nobody would be able to do anything by computer. But more than that, the licence text itself refers to 'distributing' the work, not just using it. If they wanted to make a combined map of OSM+POIs and give or sell it to others, then yes it must be under CC-BY-SA. If they just use it internally, that's their business. IANAL but this is my understanding and I believe also the community norm. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: this is in my view one of the big problems with the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about what it permits you get four answers. One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as there wouldn't be further down the chain of derivation/copying) the extent to which ODbL is enforceable depends on what (if any) IP rights a particular jurisdiction recognises in the licensed work and how that jurisdiction treats them. From my point of view, I think that is a feature, not a bug. The extent of copyright, database right and other laws is best decided by individual countries and it is IMHO misguided to try to override the compromise between public and private interests made by a particular society. However that's just opinion. More interesting is your remark about 'no contractual relationship' - which makes one ask, why have the attempted contract-law stuff in the ODbL at all? Could it not be stripped out? An ODbL-lite with the contract law stuff removed is a licence I could live with. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible to add third-party data No. That's not the case and on this point the draft licence *is* clear enough in my view. Its important to read the existing draft as is, rather than recalling what earlier drafts said. The existing draft aims to allow: - the addition of data that the contributor themselves can licence - in this case the contributor grants a perpetual licence to OSMF to relicense it under whatever current licence is being used (subject to conditions that are being discussed - but free and open of some kind), you need the CT to license the data somehow, or OSMF won't know what they can do with it - addition of data licensed under some other licence which looks like (to the contributor) it is compatible with the OSMF's current licence - there is no need for the contributor to be sure about this, but OSMF makes it clear that this is what it would like That all makes sense but even in the revised 1.2 draft it is not implied by the language. The CTs ask you to grant an unlimited licence over the Contents, without any exemption from this requirement if some rights in the Contents are held by third parties. Since I cannot grant an unlimited licence to Contents derived from Ordnance Survey OpenData, I cannot agree to the CTs. See elsewhere on this thread where I suggest a clarified wording. I'd prefer some way of saying I got this data from X, much as wikipedia does for image uploads. Yes, I believe that each upload should be tagged with the data sources used. (The practice of adding source tags to each object on the map is impractical in my view.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Rob Myers r...@... writes: It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution requirement is more reasonable.) If someone tries to launder or teleport ODbL data using produced works, they should and will fail. Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not possible to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or printed maps from the ODbL data? Or do you just mean that trying to trace from such maps would be a futile exercise, although not actually prohibited by law? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Anthony o...@... writes: One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say* you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY. To the extent that you are allowed to offer a license on a Produced Work, that license only applies to *your contribution* to the Produced Work. It does not apply to the preexisting material. The license you have for the preexisting material, i.e. the Database, is given by the original Licensor of the database, and is ODbL, not CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or anything else. Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say different things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project - rendering data into map tiles and distributing them. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Rob Myers r...@... writes: The point is this. The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence in the work. Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot. Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you received (in this case a printed map, say). That is what I want to establish. And it covers all of the copyright for that particular work, not just a subset so that you're granted a licence to the pictures but not the words. It doesn't, obviously, cover anything not contained in that work. So it couldn't possibly include the exact tags used in a landuse=brownfield area - just the shape of the area and the fact that it is brown. If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's exactly the same situation. The original OS master database is copyrighted. It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected to apply directly to derived works. Could you clarify what you mean here? The OpenData release does not include any access to the original database. I have never seen the OS's master database or the terms under which it is licensed; as far as I am concerned the Street View tiles are just some image files released under a permissive licence. If I trace from them and make a derived work, I need to stay within the licence granted - but I need not care at all what the terms are of the original DB. But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the precise structure and numbers in the database. Ah, no I don't mean the precise numbers, obviously it would be a practical impossibility to recreate the exact database and if somebody did that you would suspect that they had been peeking at the original DB all along. I just mean the subset of the information that is recoverable from the tiles. If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the copyright holder of that printed map. On the other hand, if I had a licence (from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute them under certain terms, I would be able to do that. And if the proprietary licence said you can do what you like with derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original, how would that be different from the ODbL? Perhaps it wouldn't be different, but that is not what happens here. You don't receive the map tiles under ODbL. You receive them under CC-BY, shall we say, without additional restrictions. If that is the case, then you can make derivatives such as tracing and distribute them under the licence terms you received. Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and if you do things with just the extract you received then you are covered by the licence you received with that extract. Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally recreated in this scenario? I am only referring to tracing from the map tiles themselves. Perhaps you are right that it would be practically impossible to recreate the original database from that - in which case we come to the same conclusion, albeit from different premises: that the tiles can be distributed under CC-BY without additional riders, and people can freely trace over them to make their own CC-BY licensed map. (As long as they don't cheat by looking at the source data!) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
Anthony o...@... writes: Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The Work is derived from Your Contents and Their Contents. Would a definition of Your Contents help clarify that? Yes, it would - although I think that the approach I proposed of 'section A - rights you hold' and 'section B - rights held by others' would be even clearer. The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents' would effectively be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other People's Contents'. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Anthony o...@... writes: Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map you received As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's copyright without permission. Correct! So it matters whether the tiles are produced by OSMF itself or by a third party. So a license from, say, MapQuest, granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work. ...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, although OSMF itself has the power to do so because of the special rights granted by the contributor terms. since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules) Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable. If I write a score, and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still copyrighted by the original author. Absolutely! I am not disputing that at all. I am saying that if you write a score, and then *with your permission and authorization* somebody distributes a recording of it under CC-BY or other permissive licence, then a person receiving it can exercise the rights granted by the licence to turn it back into the original score. In any case, clean room rules don't apply to database rights. So if you live in a jurisdiction with database rights, you can pretty much throw away that argument. Yes, that is a separate argument. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Rob Myers r...@... writes: My concern is still with the option to licence the data under any free and open licence. Since this has unspecified bounds, I don't see how any data with any restrictions whatsoever can be contributed as those restrictions could be broken in the future. The only restriction currently allowed in the CTs is attribution. That is not specified by the CTs, even in the proposed version 1.2. They say that 'OSMF agrees to attribute you or the copyright owner', but they do not promise that any future licence chosen will have an attribution requirement. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: I think it's pretty clear that data, if derived from the OSM data, would need to be distributed under the same share-alike terms. Yes under CC-BY-SA only the product created from the data. I don't think this is a meaningful distinction - or else I am not understanding you correctly. The OSM planet file, for example, is a product created from the OSM data, by putting it into a convenient XML format. Are you really saying that copyright does not apply to the planet file? It is data, and is copyright, and thus must be distributed under CC-BY-SA or not at all. The Oxford English Dictionary is also just a big lump of data, but is indisputably covered by copyright too. I'm part of the sysadmin team and LWG. There are no plans to restrict OSM.org tiles now or in the future. (subject to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy ) On an adoption of ODbL the OSM tiles will most likely remain CC-BY-SA licensed too. As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain? But I'm not really talking about infringements per se; I'm talking about circumventing the spirit of CC-BY-SA within the letter of CC-BY-SA. The computer-generated derivative previously discussed here and on cc-community is the obvious example; you can avoid having to share if you combine on the client rather than the server. That's more interesting. Yes, you can run a program on your local computer to download data (or any copyrighted work, really) and make manipulations to it. I am misunderstandin; local changes (non-distributed) on ODbL licensed data are not restricted. I thought Richard F. above was implying that ODbL had the power to stop people making, for example, a local client program which downloads OSM data plus some proprietary data set, combining it locally, and using it without distributing it further. If so, that would be a rather nasty licence condition. But I may not have got what he meant. At the moment under CC-BY-SA we have a ver fuzzy set of ideas/rules what is and what isn't allowed. Sure ODbL+DbCL+CTs is more text, but things are a lot clearer cut. I am not sure because there are so many fuzzy concepts which don't get nailed down - like the seemingly nonsensical distinction between the map 'database' and the 'database contents', or the vague definition of Produced Work. A licence written specifically about maps and geodata and using more specific terms would work a lot better. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Richard Weait rich...@... writes: Uh... but that 'condition on which the data was accepted' isn't specified anywhere in the contributor terms. If it really is a condition that OSMF will only distribute the data under an attribution-required licence, then the terms need to say so. Clarifying draft please? I would state something like 'any free and open licence(s), as long as the chosen licence(s) maintain the requirement that contributors be attributed'. If you promise that then the business about OSMF agreeing to provide a web page is not necessary. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: No, the data contributed to OSM can come under any terms as long as they are compatible with the *current* license; the onus is on OSM to remove it if a license change makes continued distribution impossible - quote from draft: (b) If we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible [(in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it)] with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may [suspend access to or ] delete that data temporarily or permanently. In that case why do we need the contributor terms at all, apart from a general statement that you have permission to add the data, and you're happy for it to be distributed under the current licence? If the data contributed can come under any terms, and it is OSM's job to remove it if they change licence, does that mean that an individual contributor could provide data under the terms 'CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0 is fine, but not 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] Best license for future tiles?
Richard Weait rich...@... writes: As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain? What would be your preference for the future tile license? Ed, do you have a preferred future tile license? I don't think that is the important question. If the OSM project's licence says that rendered map tiles (or Produced Works, if we assume that the ODbL's terminology applies in this way) need not be distributed under any particular terms, then anybody can download the planet file and Mapnik configuration and make their own tiles released into the public domain. Since anyone can do it, it would be silly for the OSM project to choose anything more restrictive. More important is the licensing for the source data from which the images or printed pages are generated - what permission should it grant for such derived works? And the choice there is essentially 'under the same licence as the source data' or 'unrestricted'; I don't think much in between makes sense. Presumably it would help out MapQuest, CloudMade and others if they could generate map tiles from OSM without having to publish those under share-alike. And that would probably help the project. So I'd reluctantly have to conclude that allowing it is a good idea. That does jar a bit with the claim sometimes advanced that we must move to ODbL because it provides stronger share-alike provisions. Would it be okay with you if I published my future tiles under a license that differs from that of openstreetmap.org tiles? I don't see it would be up to me? Of course, if I had agreed to license my map contributions under ODbL then I would implicitly have agreed to that. But the main OSM site and tile server is a special case. We should aim to set a good example. Yes, and that good example would be public domain. What would be the point of insisting on something else, when it can be so easily circumvented by creating a Tile Drawer instance? (Unless, of course, as a deliberate step to keep load down on the tile server... but the kind of people who ignore the tile usage policy would happily ignore any licence terms as well.) Is it simplest to keep the tile license the same as it is now rather than risk compatibility problems with downstream consumers of tiles? I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any compatibility problem. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Anthony o...@... writes: [CTs] On the other hand if the intention is 'you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, so we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, and you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that' then this must be made doubly clear, with an extra redundant paragraph if needed. I don't see any reason to believe that's the case. The stated intention is you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, nothing about we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, and nothing about you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that. Why are you adding things that aren't there? I believe those are logical consequences of granting the perpetual licence to do any act etc. However, even if they are logical consequences and don't strictly need to be stated, it would be good to add some redundant language just so that things are totally clear. However, note that I said 'if' - *if* that is the intention, then the CTs should say so. If the intention is something else, they should say that. At the moment the intention is not entirely clear, if the confusion on this list is anything to go by. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? ODbL's concept if you take a lot of insubstantial extracts and combine them then they again form a substantial extract does not apply to copyright of individual contributions made under CC-BY-SA - if you take lots of non-copyrighted bits submitted by various users and combine them then they don't suddenly become copyrighted - or maybe they do, but then it's your copyright and not that of the original contributors I think that is the same with ODbL or CC-BY-SA or any licence, after all, a licence cannot affect what is covered by copyright. If you look at database rights (to the extent that anyone really understands what they do, since I believe case law is quite thin) then the same applies. And if you believe that the ODbL creates an enforceable contract with the whole world so that it can add additional restrictions that don't come from copyright or database right law, in that case too the contract is with the distributor of the map data (or perhaps the original aggregator - I'm not sure) not with the contributors. I think the other poster makes a good point which is that double standards are to be avoided. If OSM wishes to take the position that all map data, whether strictly copyrightable or not, must be used and copied only according to certain conditions, then it should treat its contributions the same way. You may be right that since the ODbL refers to 'Substantial' use of the contents, it does allow picking out small bits and pieces in the same way as might be done for a relicensing exercise. However, it also notes Substantial – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents. To be clear - of course the existing OSM map is not covered by ODbL, but please do unto others as you would have them do unto you. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Rob Myers r...@... writes: It also seems a bit like unnecessary licence proliferation. That's only because it is. They really should have used an ODC licence IMO. If they had chosen a licence from Open Data Commons, apart from the public domain dedication, wouldn't it be incompatible with 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] OS Opendata amp;amp;amp; the new license
Rob Myers r...@... writes: I'm coming to the conclusion that individual contributor of original data to OSM and institutional importer of a third party database should be treated differently, Perhaps... but who gets the power to decide which is which? You start to introduce political decisions into the process, with all the accompanying disadvantages. I think there is a lot to be said for giving every user, and every contributor, exactly the same rights to use or contribute to the project under exactly the same terms, without special privileges for any particular group or organization. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...
andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes: To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the current contributor terms. Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: neither CC-By-SA nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the current contributor terms. Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them. Automatic presumed compatibility no. Receiving permission from restrictive data sources is not a bad thing in my mind. What I meant to say was: under these contributor terms, OSM is not compatible with itself! Although the OSM project licenses its data under CC-BY-SA or under ODbL, it would not accept such licences from others. Whether this really matters, or is just an obscure point of principle, is open to debate. But it's certainly the case. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licansing and CT 1.1
Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to accept future contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms 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] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and sou rce = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
ed...@... writes: The argument is really 'Is the Serbian government the legal successor of the Yugoslav government in Serbian territories?' Yes, it is. (Serbia and Montenegro was the successor of Yugoslavia, and after Montenegrin independence a few years ago, Serbia is the successor state of that.) Let's leave Kosovo, etc. out of the discussion. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes: Multiple times on these lists people have been advised to vote with their data. Since most contributors were not asked about the relicense process, then, if they just agree to relicense their data and then leave the project, OSMF will never know. Yes, it is daft that the question of 'do you agree with changing the licence' has become entangled with 'will you accept the new contributor terms'. There are those who don't agree with the project's direction, but, if their arm is twisted, will agree to relicense their data; there may be others who would prefer the ODbL but are unable to agree to the CTs since they don't own all the data they have contributed. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Markus_g marku...@... writes: What was the original vote deciding? The vote, of OSMF members only, was on 'I approve the process' or 'I do not approve the process'. (Those were the two choices in the vote.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
Let me explain a little more why I think the question of 'could this data be added to OSM?' is relevant. As I see it, one intention of the ODbL, and other copyleft licences such as CC-BY-SA or the GPL, is to form a 'commons' where different works can be combined and mixed. In the case of the ODbL the aim is to make sure data and databases can be reused and combined. This is explained in the Open Data Commons site at http://www.opendatacommons.org/faq/: It's crucial because open data is so much easier to break-up and recombine, to use and reuse. We therefore want people to have incentives to make their data open and for open data to be easily usable and reusable — i.e. for open data to form a 'commons'. A good definition of openness acts as a standard that ensures different open datasets are 'interoperable' and therefore do form a commons. Similar reasoning underpins the CC share-alike licences and the GPL. However, under the proposed licence change and contributor terms, OSM would not be able to participate fully in this commons. Although the ODbL would allow others to take the OSM data and combine it with other ODbL or permissive-licensed data sources, the OSM project could not do likewise. Without extra permission, we could not incorporate ODbL data into our map, even if it had been derived from OSM in the first place. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: Although the ODbL would allow others to take the OSM data and combine it with other ODbL or permissive-licensed data sources, the OSM project could not do likewise. The Contributor Terms are the _standard_ agreement between contributors and OSMF. But they do not have to be the only agreement. There is nothing to stop OSMF itself adding data outwith the CTs; or coming to different agreements with individual contributors; or adding easements to the CTs for all contributors using particular data sources. Yes, indeed, the standard solution to any difficulty seems to be 'grant extra powers to the OSMF that ordinary contributors don't have'. Sigh... -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
Out of interest has anyone asked the Open Data Commons people (or person) for their opinion on the proposed contributor terms? I know the ODbL licence was developed jointly with them but I imagine the CTs were not. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Surely we can all agree to differ about whether data imports are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The legal-talk mailing list is not really the place for such a discussion. Most people will say 'it depends on the particular data being added' and we could perhaps leave it at that. What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. We as a community choose what kind of map we want to create, and then need to choose a licence to support that choice. At the moment the tail seems to be wagging the dog. Some people want to import data, some don't. Both groups need to be supported. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@... writes: Hello,just a quick note to mention that two different legal entities in very different places in the world just adopted ODbL as their preferred licenses: Thanks for the note. The first of these, DataPlace, seems to want a permissive attribution-only licence (we’ve taken an important step to make these data freely available for any use, anywhere, in any application, commercial or public, as long as that use attributes DataPlace) so it's not clear why they have chosen the strong-copyleft ODbL. Under the proposed contributor terms, would OSM be able to import or use any data from these ODbL-covered data releases? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Dave F. dave...@... writes: OS Opendata compatibility with the new proposed license Contribution Terms as they're worded *at this moment*. The current contributor terms for new accounts require you grant a licence to the OSMF to do 'any act that is restricted by copyright', subject to section 3 which says that OSMF will distribute under CC-BY-SA, ODbL/DbCL, or 'another free and open licence'. Since you are not the copyright holder for the OS OpenData content, I don't believe you can grant such a licence to the OSMF. If you interpret the text more loosely and don't require that you grant a licence as it says, but instead that you make sure the OSMF has the necessary permission one way or another, then they still aren't quite right, because the permission given by the Ordnance Survey doesn't really allow 'any free and open licence'. That's my understanding of the language in the current terms and conditions, but I would welcome any corrections. However, where ambiguity exists, it might be wise to take the more conservative interpretation. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
