Re: [OSM-legal-talk] There is no copyright on way tags like street names
On 28 December 2011 18:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Some reasons that I think it'd be risky to use that fact that there's no copyright in some tags are: * copyright works this way in many jurisdictions but in other jurisdictions the creativity factor is less important and the amount of work put into collection of data (sweat of the brow) is more According to the legal advice Ed Avis went and got, the creativity bar is pretty low when it comes to maps, not just sweat of the brow... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
On 24 November 2011 05:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this Which would be derived from cc-by-sa, so it'd still be under copyright. action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and Perhaps you should test this theory by copying content from wikipedia, indenting it to the left one metre. Also placement of nodes aren't a fact, they are an interpretation of facts. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On 1 September 2011 18:25, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the OSMF. That's an interesting spin on things, wouldn't the pragmatic approach be for OSM-F to work with CC to come up with a CC-by-SA license that is deemed more suitable? Not that I see anything wrong with the current license, in fact the whole exercise seems like a knee jerk reaction because some think something must be done. ___ 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
On 24 July 2011 02:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: So do I suggest to stop the license change process? No, I don't. The Contributor Terms will solve many problems on their own, so my suggestion is what could be labelled CT + CC-BY-SA. This will cause similar/same problems as CT+ODBL, which stops the benefits from sharing a like and being able to take changes that others have made and include them unless they agree to the CT, already you see this with people saying their changes are public domain so the data isn't wasted, but absolutely will never agree to the CTs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on their own website. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why bother about licenses at all? Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think map content is protected under copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OT: artists and copyright (was Re: license change effect on un-tagged nodes)
On 7 July 2011 16:40, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: So artists have a human right to be rich? Glad you took my point so far out of context, someone claimed that copyright existed for economic reasons. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for starting a fork in the first place. And what is it you wish by forcing bad terms into the CT just so OSM might be able to go PD in future, although some of those abilities have been lost in the process it would seem, you seem to be a firm believer in PD, why are you settling for second best all of a sudden? I guess the thought of excessive data loss was unpalatable after all. Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good basis for a rational argument. It seems the only one basing arguments on emotive language in this thread is yourself, glass houses and not throwing stones and all that. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 7 July 2011 04:03, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current license and thus clause 2 only applies to the rights held by the contributor and not to all data contributed by the contributor, it might be a good time to think about the practical implications of this. It's my understanding that the OS data needs to be attributed directly or indirectly, CC-by-SA offers this, but the ODBL doesn't, so if you mean current license as in CC-by-SA then sure. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your point here, since you are 1 person, not 10. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright? Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this? Which is of course the real issue, copyright does exist on the content, and assumptions have to be made about what is likely to have happened. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for IMHO that's a very weak protection for a cc-by-sa map. How will the ODBL help here any better? This is an issue for all maps and this is why map companies put in trap streets. BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001.html Unofficial Translation: Reproducing of geographical facts which one gets by surveying (for example the course of a mountain range, a river or a street or the location of a locality) in a map isn't protected by copyright (Urheberrecht) So you are planning to copy from google maps then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Google in addition have their ToS. So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to another person who is only bound by copyright ... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Think that all you like, it won't make it any more true than the comment about copyright not really applying in the digital age, the fact is maps and map making are covered by copyright, and copyright is recognised in most countries. Otherwise we could take other copyrighted maps and copy them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the morally right thing to do which is usually where laws stem from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters) which doesn't make it recent, but still twice as old as copyright law. The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not moral as you imply. How many painters die poor? What about famous composers? Economics became an issue much later. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world can be classified as creative work, as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his effort, and any deviation is just imperfection and corrected once the right information is available. We aren't for the most part trying to make raster images of aerial imagery, so there is a lot of creativity that goes into making interpretations of the real world. I never met a OSM mapper saying he is using his creativity to create an original view of the world. Its not just a lack in precision and perfection that makes a work creative, the creator must also have the intention to add something of himself. In terms of copyright this doesn't matter, just like if you write a few lines of whatever, you automatically receive copyright on your work. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way, i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object. The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 3 July 2011 02:15, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT, while B has. Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license change? You could say: yes, because version 2 is clearly a derived work of version 1. You could also say: no, because the information added in version 2 (new coordinates) overwrites all information that was there from version 1, so there is nothing left to be protected. Opinions? I'm guessing, but I feel your simple example above would only hold true for unattached nodes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License compatibility clarification
On 25 June 2011 06:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: 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. ODBL has no minimum license that produced works can be placed under, so the only licenses compatible with ODBL are PD/CC0 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. OSM-F went down this path by their own choosing, how they handle data they haven't gained express permission from will indicate how far down the moral ladder things have sunk. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google imagery and it wasn't till after the street names had been applied that someone found about the tracing, because that's where things are at, since you have no more permission to keep data contributed than if it was contributed from a tainted source. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 03:37, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. Haiti is one small area, most of the time people that copy from google don't have permission. And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Why don't you urge OSM-F to stick with the current license, after all it's the OSM-F pushing for a license change that will end up causing data loss. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 21 June 2011 23:31, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote: [Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I think the question being asked arises from the following hypothetical chain of events: 1/ Person A has a database that he licenses under ODbL. 2/ Person B takes the database and creates a produced work [...] and also licenses the produced work (eg map tiles) under either (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By. 3/ Person C takes the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By, and creates a derivative work from it by 'reverse engineering' the map tiles to recover (some of) the data in the original database. [...] I think it's worth re-iterating the point made earlier: If Person A has publically expressed their desire that the database and copies of it remain under ODbL, and Person C is aware of this, then Person C needs to get their own legal advice. Person A, if asked about the possible loophole, should just repeat that their intention is that copies of the database should only be available under ODbL. Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 19:55, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I just wanted to make clear that our current data is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so) but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted can be CC-BY-SA. Well the assumption is that the data can be licensed as CC0/PD or CC-by-SA etc, but your statements are more against the CT than relevant to ODBL... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. You are correct up until the assumption is that person C doesn't have access to the original data, instead they are deriving data from the produced images. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce attribution on produced works at the very least. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By without seeing the database it was produced from or agreeing to the ODbL. Doesn't hosting/offering the DB only come into play if they make changes to the data? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 23:20, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. Since things seem to be going head first towards ODBL shouldn't that license also be considered when advising people about compatibility with the CT, otherwise it could be seen as very misleading and/or deceitful if they have full knowledge that it could mislead people. The ODBL and CT are being sold as a package deal, so that's how things should always be treated. with no midway point. Even with the current wording in the CT there is no guarantee that future license changes would definitely remove any data not compatible, so there and then that should be a show stopper over compatibility, the CT simply isn't compatible with any CC license other than CC0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
I forgot to ask, do SVG files constitute a produced work? The kind OSM.org currently outputs as SVG maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. The ODbL requires attribution of the database. The database can contain other attribution. Have you forgotten the PD tiles thread that you and I participated in on this list? Here's a reminder: The problem is I keep getting conflicting information and being told it's possible to put tiles under any license, including CC0/PD. So you are saying that CC-by, or equivalent license, is the minimum compatible with the ODBL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 19:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Tiles are clearly *maps* and so protected as artistic works under article 2(1) of the Berne Convention and therefore (one hopes) in every country which is a signatory to Berne which includes the US and the EU. What you can do with tiles will depend on how OSMF chooses to licence the OSM. Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 19:48, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/6/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? Where do they do all these acts? Jurisdiction may matter. In the UK reconstructing a substantial part of the database from the tiles would almost certainly be an extraction and so potentially infringing the database right unless licensed etc. I think quite likely an infringement of copyright in the database in the UK as well. Quite possibly not an infringement of copyright elsewhere. I simply don't know about that. Generally doing something indirectly via other works cannot be used to launder an infringement in the UK. Well this is why I asked if the second party was in the US. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before- publicating her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0 ;) It's silly because some people injected a silly argument into it, but it would seem that ODBL opens up some pretty big loop holes that CC-by-SA doesn't, and we've been told time after time about how much better it is, CC-by-SA is working just fine, but ODBL won't. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote: Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial. CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under? Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles. Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM tileserver is likely to do that. A database created by tracing from these tiles might however be subject to the limitations I have outlined in my previous email. Whether or not CC-BY-SA makes such a distinction or not is not relevant. I tried to explain this by referring to the related case of patents (here, too, CC-BY-SA makes no distinction), but I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp. Database restrictions don't concern me, as there is no DB directives or similar in most of the world, and I don't find any of this difficult to grasp, but I do keep getting conflicting answers from those promoting the new license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright license. I'm aware of the patent/trademark issues, I wish Frederik hadn't brought this up as it only serves to side track things, because unless he plans to constantly patent tiles we can ignore that side of things completely. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 01:10, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are not in trouble, just if. Depending how much China wants to crack down, any OSM-F member could probably be thrown in a Chinese jail for failure to comply with Chinese laws, what's your point? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 05:25, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the advice here (under Be specific about what you are licensing): As I said before, you can easily do this with copyright, use CC-by-ND instead of CC-by-SA, but if something is licensed as CC-by-SA it can legally be derived from as long as the resulting work is also CC-by-SA. ___ 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
On 5 June 2011 21:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Nick Hocking wrote: The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Well if you are prepared to do this work, and if it is clear that the other mapper doesn't support the license change, and if you think simply staying with the current status for a while is not an option (since you need to add road name), then I'd just delete the other person's data and replace it with yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other mapper can hardly complain. He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data, so far I'm told the SES and other emergency services use their own GPS/mapping solutions. So unless he can backup his claims he's only going to be vandalising the map, and here you are cheering him along after you so carefully worded things earlier to try and prevent any kind of edit waring or map vandalisim. As others have pointed out, the best way to handle the change over would be to start a new database and copy data into it that is allowable. ___ 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
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. He made the same claim to talk-au without backing up his assertions when questions so his claims could be verified. ___ 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
On 5 June 2011 22:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does not make a difference. As I said, you tried so hard to word thing to reduce the change of an edit war and now you are cheering some along to do the exact opposite, so I'd say it makes a lot of difference at this point in time. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
On 6 May 2011 22:16, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The alternative would be to continue using CC-BY-SA in the face of objections, and continue to misleading users about the effectiveness of the license. Still this sad tired old line, please come up with new FUD to keep things interesting. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
On 6 May 2011 15:25, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: has no clothes, and there are no little kids around to say Gee, this relicensing thing ... maybe it's not such a good idea? Plenty of people have been pointing this out, but those that should be listening aren't and as a result OSM has gone from almost exponential growth to stagnant growth to negative growth... The fact that people are turning away from OSM should be a huge wake up call, but sadly no one is listening... It's too late. You have to live with CC-By-SA, even if it's not perfect. It's all you've got. From what I gather about the ODBL, mind you I can't get consistent views on it which should be a big red flag, it's worst in general for those using the data, at present you only have to care about copyright, in future you will most likely have to get contracts with end users to be in line with the ODBL, to me this is not only going backwards, but it puts even more onus on people wanting to use OSM data to the point of being rediculous... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa, especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes would matter just as much. For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing data for is to work out what doesn't need to be done. Same would go for the Canadian mass import currently occurring,same goes for other data imports such as OS. The only time it would matter is for things like extrapolation the position of streets based on the location of existing streets. IANAL etc On 4/17/11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Sent from my mobile device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind Linux, which could be due to the strong sharing clauses of the license. I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over Neither have I, but others have as comments to that extent were on the wiki. GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). That's hardly a reason, if GMM was published for personal use someone is bound to be able to convert it to garmin format just like others created tools to use OSM data on Garmin devices. I understand though that some may have used the no central body as a promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a long time now. The FSF have 20 years of not only expressing strong opinions about moral aspects of licensing, but they have stuck to their guns, something that the OSM-F hasn't done, SteveC states at various times in the past he will only support share a like licenses, yet the ODBL and CT both weaken this stance considerably. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On 8 April 2011 16:55, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping. Until recently CC people were taking a contrary approach to what they seem to be taking now, I can't help but think the timing more than likely had something to do with the continuing debate over OSM-F licenses. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms upgrade ready
On 19 January 2011 02:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 January 2011 15:48, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: The links below show the wording we will formally release. I will confirm when it is done. We will then set up and announce mechanism whereby anyone who has accepted the 1.0 terms can upgrade, this will be entirely optional. The wording drops one suggested change - the addition of the phrase, and to the extent that you are able to do so or similar into clause (2) - we'd like to look at this one further as it has some potential side-effects as currently worded. With this new version, do you/others think it is OK for people who So far all I've seen is contradicting information coming from people pushing for this change, one will say yes, another will say no because you have to give OSM-F the ability to change the license in future and they can't do this unless the information is done so by a copyright holder. ___ 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
On 8 January 2011 20:37, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct, then ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced works (e.g., maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc (see 5.c) Richard has expressed an opinion that produced works must be attributed. Or am I missing something? (Probably.) The proponents of ODBL can't even agree what it means, so what help is there for the rest of us. ___ 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 (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others, published data under the same/similar license. ___ 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 (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)
On 8 January 2011 01:33, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand. The last figures I compiled for OSM data imports are: From what I've been told privately by people on the inside is that they're not happy that they've been encouraged to share at all, and the lack of suitable attribution would give them the ammo they needed to be able to not have to share in future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 8 January 2011 01:21, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: I naturally would prefer the term flexibility rather than indecisiveness :-) and that it is a highly strategic feature not a bug. I don't see it as flexibility, I see it as indecisiveness, I can only imagine how disorganised and a mess linux kernel development would be without a clear outlook on licensing, linux is clearly GPL and BSD is clearly BSD licensed, it's not going to chop and change at the whim of a small vocal group. I hope you will stay contributing and be a party to future collective decisions whether or not we personally agree. OSM is a very, very long life project about free and open geodata. Share-alike and PD are tools just as Ruby-on-Rails is. Flexibility on those tools is important for three reasons. I can't and won't continue to contribute to OSM-F after the CT becomes mandatory. Just as Frederik made it clear he wouldn't continue with OSM-F if PD wasn't possible in future. This is a moral issue for me and I can't give OSM-F a blank cheque just as Nearmap won't. - The first is short-term, internal to OSM and political. There are broadly two main groups of contributors, share-alike and PD proponents. Each side claims to be in the majority so the reality is that both sides are roughly even and neither can claim moral ascendency. My goal is consensus between those two groups: we stay share-alike, we pioneer a coherent share-alike license for highly factual data and we explore how it can work in the real world. If it works well, the 2/3 majority required to make a change effectively locks in share-alike. Otherwise, the PD proponents who reluctantly go along can try and persuade us why a PD-like license can best serve the open data movement, and they have a rational, democratic mechanism to do so. If enthusiastic supporters of either side are unhappy, then I have done my job well :-) This should be of great concern, if you think those expressing opinions now against the CT is bad, imagine the fireworks over such a moral and personal issue. This is bordering on a religious debate and well people have been blowing up churches lately because of differences of religious opinions. In fact the only non-religious based conflict at present is North Korea. - OpenStreetMap is THE pioneer in creating and licensing open highly granular, high factual data. It took over 10 years for the choices for licensing open software to become obvious and reasonably mature. We are only 6 years in and still discussing our opening move. I see the ODBL as a step backwards, the license is so complex and so misunderstood even by those promoting it that how is everyone else going to cope, at least with a simple copyright license expectations and so forth are well understood, and while you seem to be implying map data is a simple database of factual information, this is a bone of contention as others have pointed out that maps can be copyrightable regardless of the format they may reside in, and maps were the first thing copyrightable. At present the only issue seems to be that CC-by-SA lacks a database clause. -The flexibility is ultimately for the long, long term. A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years time, just as I can still navigate using a local 1891 OS map. We are on the extreme end as to the potential life of our project. Software, even operating systems, come and go and get re-written with fresh perspectives. If, as happens, they die because the licensing regimen did not anticipate the future, it is not such a big deal. For us, it is. Share-alike is a tool to progressing the goal of Open IP, not an end in itself. May be it will have outlived its utility in 10, 50 or 100 years, may be it won't. I keep getting told that the flexability is in the best interests of the project, if this were true was is it more common for commercial entities to require this, where as most other things like the linux kernel has clearly defined principals that the project is based on. This will only end in tears. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 8 January 2011 01:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I keep getting told that the flexibility is in the best interests of the project, if this were true why is it more common for commercial entities to require this, where as most other things like the linux kernel has clearly defined principals that the project is based on. Actually now that I think about it, I'd love pay for ring side seats to see the outcome of such flexibility if linux kernel contributors were made to agree to such a contract before they could upload code, so the project might have flexibility if contributors in future thought some other license would be better for the project and well GPL v BSD arguments of the past would look like a friendly get together. ___ 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
On 8 January 2011 03:12, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). They also only require that you grant rights to OSMF to the extent that you are able to do so, so the fact that you can't grant rights over and above those required by ODbL is not a problem. Erm doesn't that invalidate the flexibility or relicense in future people keep going on about? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On 5 January 2011 22:15, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Repeated again... per account. The 1.0 version of the CT terms are not clear, but the intent is per account. And here I was thinking that contracts are about what's in them... No matter how much you'd wish and hope they'd have been more clear to begin with, it won't change the wording until you actually update what people can agree to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
On 5 January 2011 22:21, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate accounts together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail address. Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept or not accept the CT for his currently exisiting account as he wishes. You seem to be confusing enforcement of contracts with the contract itself. Just because something might be difficult to enforce doesn't make it less enforcible, and as usual, it mostly effects those that tend to err to the side of caution/honesty. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 22:28, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Our mapping is (likely) illegal in North Korea and a few other You have mentioned China, because mapping there is illegal without the proper permits or whatever you need. regions. I bet we would not remove the data even if formally demanded by the North Korean Government etc. Since OSM data is hosted in the UK this is mostly a strawman argument. This is argument is only applicable for those that are collecting data by survey, since they would be breaking the law. The language choice of language is intentional. What exactly is your point here? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms, whether the illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing copyright material without permission. What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law? This seems like comparing apples and oranges, of course you can't kill people, well there is even exceptions there but that is getting off topic. The problem here is the fact that you want to do something, incorporate OS data into OSM, however I can't see how the current CTs, or even any of the rivisions would allow this unless you added some guarantees of actions that would be taken in future if the license was changed. So when the CTs say that [OSMF] may delete that data, that's just a warning to the user. It doesn't need to be a promise of we won't break the law because that's taken as read - especially in the light of the clause Breaking contracts isn't usually breaking the law, however the law can be invoked to remedy any breaches of that contract law, however I'm not claiming that, I'm saying you can't even do something unless you have at least some kind of policy on outcomes of certain events occurring, in this case putting it in the CT contract would make a lot of sense if you actually wanted to allow others to do something that the CTs would otherwise prohibit. that starts off the whole of Section 1, We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others. Which to me is typical cover your ass type clauses that exist in most places, it doesn't state how or what would happen in cases that that clause is breached. This goes back to Steve Bennett's question about unagreeing to the CT, it seems to me he breached the CTs the moment he agreed to them in which case the CT would be null and void since nothing is specified as to what should happen. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 23:53, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England Wales; and the CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be governed by English law. I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying music. From CDPA 1988 (there's lots more): A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner... distributes... to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright... an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work. The penalty is up to ten years' imprisonment. Scary stuff. Would that penalty be for personal or commercial infringement? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 6 January 2011 00:29, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying music. ... being sued to the same extent outside the US... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at the end of it, however the CTs introduce, with respect to licensing, an uncertainty about the license the project will operate in future. Or to put this in context, how many people would contribute to a GPL project that has a CT with a similar relicensing clause, meaning to allow future contributors to make all kinds of licensing decisions on behalf of those that laid the ground work to switch to a BSD license. Grant and others keep going on about reading the spirit of the CT more than the wording, but at present OSM uses a share a like license (similar to GPL) but might switch to a PD/BSD license in future, this uncertainty will turn many in the software world off, as I keep asking why is the majority of OSM software so proudly offered under GPL and not BSD if you want things to be future proofed? Why is asking OSM(F) for some license certainty such a bad thing, it's this kind of statement that would define if you like, the types of people willing to contribute. Take for example Frederik's post a couple of months ago about no longer contributing to OSM if it wasn't even remotely possible for OSM to be PD in future. Then you have the new sign up stats, I'm not sure how many have ticked the PD box, but I'm guessing most don't bother to read what that tick box is for and tick it because they're so used to I agree boxes at the bottom of sign up forms, and not expecting that it does something completely different. Alternatively you also have SteveC who has made comments about not supporting a change to a license without share a like. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 4 January 2011 18:40, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in order to continue to EDIT. eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible with CT. Which brings up the other point of contention about the 2/3rds of active contributors that others have pointed out, namely that you lock out people from contributing further that may object to further license change there by being able to do things like vote stacking to suit your agenda... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 01:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence. (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.) That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses how can you link back to a list of sources to attribute? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 01:54, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe the would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on the Wiki any more etc.etc.) Either way you look at it, someone contributing crap would be eligible, while someone contributing reasonable content to the wiki would be excluded. How is that reasonable? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 02:16, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or That's not the impression I get, take this comment for example: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-December/007385.html The only difference between Anthony and others is the scale of what they might think as their's it seems to me... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On 23 December 2010 00:42, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: This interpretation (or at least, the acceptance of it as something OSM would want to do) is truly evil. I only wonder how widespread it is among OSM contributors. I hope in good faith that it is held by very few. After turning the vote of OSM-F members from being one of agreeing to a process to making it look like one of agreeing to change the option of doing evil seems to be the status quo these days... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 8 December 2010 18:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: John Smith wrote: In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Nice bait and switch... Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?! My point exactly, it's not nice to make slightly misleading statements appear as if an apple and an orange are identical. It'd be nice if those that want to lump the CT in with the ODBL could be consistent, rather than picking and choosing as it benefits them. In your first paragraph you lump ODBL+CT together and then you conveneintly only use ODBL in your second paragraph, please point out if the UK Open Government License is also compatible with ODBL+CT. In my view, yes, it is compatible with ODbL+CT 1.2 (though not 1.0). OGL is an attribution licence and CT 1.2 guarantees attribution within the rights grant to OSMF. It's one thing to give you a pretty flower and tell you it will live forever, but at some point every thing fades away and you end up with reality, rather than half baked guarantees that may not actually be 100% of what was implied or suggested, there is strong doubts that this would actually live up to the expectation and may end up causing more harm than it would ever increase good will in future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence. Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's such a shame he, and others keep doing this. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Disappointing as ever... [citation needed] What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false statement being made repeatedly and you don't bother to ask the person to retract their comment and to refrain from pushing the same false statements in future. Instead you choose to make emotive statements trying to belittle those that would like to see a lot more honesty and transparency on the license debacle. You have just proven Steve Bennett point perfectly: I don't know how to have constructive discussions on the topic though - most seem to devolve fairly rapidly. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On 8 December 2010 11:40, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and on with vexatious claims. What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you point them out? List archive links prefered. So you've seen my claims and so I can only conclude you are most likely trying to push me into wasting time to gather links to posts you are already fully aware of. Go Fish. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 8 December 2010 11:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of future mappers. In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Nice bait and switch... In your first paragraph you lump ODBL+CT together and then you conveneintly only use ODBL in your second paragraph, please point out if the UK Open Government License is also compatible with ODBL+CT. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 25 November 2010 17:39, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. [GG] I agree with that, and no facts can be protected by any law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only positional fact be things like geocoding lookups? If you have to make a decision about placement doesn't this require some kind of creative process or decision on the placement, regardless if it is derived or interpreted? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 09:30, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: 3. give the finger to all people anti ODbL At least you are being honest, which is more than Frederik seems to be capable of, you don't make any pretense that there was ever any kinda of democratic process going on and the whole thing is a sham and a white wash to push through what ever agendas are in play... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). [citation needed] You could have found it faster than replying to that email... http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22lie+of+omission%22 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 12:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: How charming that you use selective quoting to fabricate a lie of omission. Viewing the original shows no lie. And that your fabrication failed to gain traction the first time you trotted it out. Nice attempt at distraction, but it doesn't refute the point that he didn't tell the whole truth and was at least a little deceptive about the whole thing. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html You are entitled to your anonymity and your pseudonym. Even though it wraps your every word in a lie of omission. Are you planning to call anyone that ever used a pen name a liar as well, at least I'll be in good company I suppose... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] auckland city council copyright notice
On 1 November 2010 11:44, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Municipalities shouldn't write licenses; it ain't their job. It ain't their core competence. Their citizens ain't paying for the city to do license composition and maintenance. Regardless what we'd like, we should be happy they didn't just slap crown copyright all over everything and are branching out with more liberal licenses, this sort of mindset change doesn't happen over night and it's a shame that this sort of thing isn't celebrated, rather than shunned. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to deal with CC 2.0 data imports? Proposal Dual licensing of data under odbl-1.0
On 30 October 2010 00:07, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I have written to the people who donated the data to dual license it under the oodbl as well as under the creative commons. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ That may not be enough, as they would have to agree to allow OSM to relicense it in future, not just agree to ODBL: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Incompatibility_with_ODBL_.2F_Share_A_Like_Data ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to deal with CC 2.0 data imports? Proposal Dual licensing of data under odbl-1.0
On 30 October 2010 03:56, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I see, and there is no way around this? So everyone in the world become bound by the contributor terms? does anything think this is even feasible? Those trying to push OSM towards PD think it's feasible and are doing their utmost to push their agenda on everyone else. What type of license is that? It's not a license, it's a contractual agreement. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to deal with CC 2.0 data imports? Proposal Dual licensing of data under odbl-1.0
On 30 October 2010 04:28, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk ) in the Contributor Terms Revision section: Until recently there was no indication of any kind of compromise, and while it's encouraging to see this is now occurring it doesn't actually take effect until/unless something ends up in an official copy of CTs... ___ 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
On 1 October 2010 21:04, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: You're joking. It's a few pints worth of money. Nice, just insult most people not in a first world nation, that sort of money is a months worth of wages (or more) to some... ___ 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
On 30 September 2010 18:31, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 09/30/2010 02:56 AM, John Smith wrote: Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it most likely won't effect them personally. Yet they hold stead fast to the current course of things regardless of the impact on others... Nobody has determined that OS data is incompatible (or that it cannot be The lawyer for OS claims it isn't... made compatible if it is). At worst we have conflicting reports. I'll take Considering that so far no one seems to be willing to compromise to allow other similar licenses I strongly doubt that it will occur. legal advice over reported email comments in that case, though. As myself and others have pointed out, the OS lawyer(s) claim it's not compatible. Quite a few of the people in this debate who are in favour of the ODbL are from the UK. We would be affected by the loss of OS data if that actually happens. What are you going to do if the CT or ODBL isn't changed so that is compatible with OS data? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
On 30 September 2010 21:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: The Contributor Terms are the _standard_ agreement between contributors and OSMF. I can't be bothered searching for it and I'm paraphrasing, but Frederik posted to one of these lists that it was only likely 2 or 3 exemptions to the CTs would be given, perhaps 10 at most world wide. So while you are correct, it's already clearly outlined that some aren't fond of anything but the CTs. ___ 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
On 29 September 2010 22:21, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. Any reason you specifically didn't mention that OS's lawyer refutes that claim? ___ 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
On 30 September 2010 07:58, Paul Williams pjwde...@googlemail.com wrote: or contributor loss), but have felt unhappy about such comments as those quoted above that the OS data doesn't matter and so it doesn't matter whether the licence is compatible - I and I am sure many other people find the OS data to be a very useful tool for their mapping. Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it most likely won't effect them personally. Yet they hold stead fast to the current course of things regardless of the impact on others... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
On 30 September 2010 06:34, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This is about the ODbL being adopted by others, thus showing that it is not just OSM who believe that it is good. What about Ed's question, regardless if the information is useful for OSM or not, could it be imported into OSM? ___ 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
On 28 September 2010 21:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal answer is a clear no; because to me, the value of imported data is very small, almost neglibile compared to data contributed by members. How many more people have to express an opinion that differs to yours before you will accept the fact that people do want the ability to import data, not to mention the ability to keep existing work. I really wish someone would have the backbone to fess up and say OSM will now go in this direction, or OSM is going in that direction, because frankly the indecisiveness is turning existing and potential contributors away. ___ 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
On 29 September 2010 02:14, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Most of the mappers I know are not fond of imports. You can mostly just import data that is already available elsewhere. Data that gets imported without a vivid community is doomed to get old and useless. Ok, lets not confuse issues here, one is either imports done poorly or data that is of low value/poor quality, and the other is the ability to import data. People care much more for their own data then for imported data. Frederik is not alone with his statement, there is a big community behind him that sees this similar. And there seems to be just as many infavour, however the two groups seem to differ only by their experience of previous imports. ___ 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
On 29 September 2010 02:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: OK, lets not confuse issues here, one is to perform the import, the other is maintenance and updates of the data. How is maintenance of imported data any different than maintenance of non-imported data? ___ 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
On 29 September 2010 02:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: thing is if you have non-imported data, there is usually someone who is caring for it. If you do imports, there might be someone but mostly How many people that mapped Haiti still care for that data 6 months later? While that is the most obvious example, others include user turn over, I've seen figures of 50%, so again 6 months later the user that added information could be long gone. ___ 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
On 29 September 2010 04:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The latter is most definitely 'cared' for 'maintained'. I certainly don't want to loose the ability to do b) nor loose existing data I've added that way. neither do I Ok, I see my problem before, it was with the word 'import', so ignoring that, do you think it's a good idea to be compatible with other similar licenses? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Natural person in CT 3
On 21 September 2010 06:38, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote: On the other hand, if someone has two accounts, we probably can rely on the honor system. Currently it's being suggested that people create a second account so they can agree to the CTs, this doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that people should be told, since agreeing to the CTs is supposed to cover a person not an account. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-September/007101.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Natural person in CT 3
On 21 September 2010 08:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: CTs are per account. Active Contributors are per person. Exactly, you agree to the CTs as a person, which then encompasses all accounts used, unless the wording of the current CTs is changed your suggestion shouldn't be given. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 18 September 2010 07:15, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: 2) My question was about how the new license/CT is worded *now* not in the assumptive future. The problem is the CTs allow the potential for relicensing with a fairly low barrier, but they don't address what happens with existing data when such a license change happens, and this is the issue. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 17 September 2010 05:25, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_ compatible with ODbL and the Contributor Terms. Specifically section 4 of the Contributor Terms provides a mechanism for attribution. You are yet to explain how this actually satisfies things completely... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Incompatibility_with_CC-BY_.2F_Attribution_Data ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
