Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new use case
I'm pretty sure that Martijn means does NOT allow, rather than now. :-) So, whatever you are planning, Jennifer, hitting the editing API is probably going to get you some unwanted attention. There are other ways to access the OpenStreetMap data, and you'll want to make sure that you are using one of those approved methods that is suitable to your use case. To be clear, accessing and using OpenStreetMap data is okay, all else being equal. Causing inappropriate stress on OpenStreetMap Foundation resources is not okay. Let's presume that you are going to use the replication data method to keep a local and current version of OpenStreetMap data, so you won't be loading the editing API. What you describe in very general terms does sound like case 3 from that wiki page, [1]. I want to publish something based on OpenStreetMap data and my own data. So where you ask, 1) is this allowed, I would say, yes, the license grants you permission so long as you comply with the terms of the license. and where you ask 2) If so, how would I give credit if nothing is displayed? Or would I not have to give credit since no map or direct data is displayed? This answer is more complicated. You are obliged to give credit, that is one of the license terms. So if you fail to give credit, you haven't got a license to use and republish the data. Additionally, there is the share-alike obligation. So, if that applies, you'll have to meet that obligation as well. You've been very general about the nature of the external data you plan to consult, so I don't know if you'll have an obligation to share-alike. How would you give credit? You should do so in a manner suitable or customary to the medium. Consider the TV credit roll mentioned in the wiki. For say, cupcakes or ear rings made with OpenStreetMap data, I would expect a notation on the packaging. For a wall clock, or coasters, I would expect a label on the back.[2] For electronic hardware I'd expect credit in the firmware and the documentation. So, in short, the credit should be where a user, or consumer, or developer (or mapper) would expect it. Credit shouldn't be somewhere hidden behind a disused file cabinet. :-) Best regards and happy mapping, Richard [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_3:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_my_own_data [2] http://weait.com/coasters.png ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Updated: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215 Hey Martin - the change you link to was to replace the term 'geocode' with the more common 'geocoding result' - do you have a specific concern with it? GEOCODE is a trade mark belonging to a litigious, oh I shouldn't get personal, professor. :-) The background is on the wiki, but I thought this was made clear earlier in the thread? http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Geocode_Trademark ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google awarded patent on automatic correction of road geometry from imagery
Didn't Steve C publish an automated tool to create road geometry from aerial imagery when he was at Microsoft? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes which tighten and clarify without changing intent. I have made one large edit by replacing my original horizontal cuts text with some that I believe is better [1]. [ ... ] I find the new text to be clear and believe that it will serve well as a community guideline. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative Commons license question
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: [ ... ] [And if anyone in the UK wants to help them by creating tiles from scratch under a CC-BY license, let me know and I'll pass on. It does seem to be in a good cause. But the core question is still a good one to answer.] Not currently in UK, but I can generate tiles for them, for the use described. I'll insist that they meet their attribution obligations of course. :-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Open data is a different animal to software source code and highly-creative works and I suspect it will [be] a few more years yet until we understand it all fully. Sure. Of course, we are part of why it is a big deal now, and we are also part of why it is still evolving. It should be no surprise that Old Model Entities have a hard time keeping up with us. :-) [ ... ] Again, it just a research topic. I see it as benefiting the OpenStreetMap project enormously but at the same time potentially debasing the whole concept of share-alike for the wider open data community ... perhaps those restaurant reviews should be shared? One benefit of the community guidelines, and the recognition of them by ODC-ODbL[1] is that they apply to our community, and not to another Open Data project community unless they deliberately adopt them. Another benefit is that the community guidelines are trivially easy for the OpenStreetMap community to amend and adapt compared to waiting for an updated version of ODbL. That gives us the ability to revise the wording of the community guidelines should that be required to adapt to our changing world. That's not a hypothetical situation; we're changing it. Super to have your thoughts on this Mike. [1] http://opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/#What_is_8216Substantial8217 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attributing OpenStreetMap at Mapbox
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I just posted a writeup on my diary on how we're attributing OpenStreetMap at Mapbox. [ ... ] [ and from the blog ] (c) Mapbox (c) OpenStreetMap links to https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps with a full listing of all sources. [ ... ] Looking forward to feedback. I feel that the attribution that you currently use provides insufficient recognition for OpenStreetMap. A rough equivalent would be to refer to your company or one of your products, but then link to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Commercial_OSM_Software_and_Services Your choice of attribution is probably okay based on a strict reading of the current guidance in the wiki. I feel that we should change that guidance and require a more prominent, and individualized attribution for OpenStreetMap. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: [ ... ] But it is a reality that [ fear of a Share Alike obligation(?)]* slows, or in some cases stops, adoption of/contribution to OSM. Slows contribution to OpenStreetMap? That sounds incorrect to me. ODbL and particularly Share Alike _encourage_ contribution to OpenStreetMap. One very simple way to be sure you are Sharing Alike is to make your improvements to the OpenStreetMap data first, then consume and reuse the data. That's probably the ideal consumer of OpenStreetMap data; the consumer who shares their improvements first then consumes the data unchanged. And it is a rock solid, dead simple way to meet your Share Alike obligations. Does avoidance of Share Alike obligations reduce adoption of OpenStreetMap data? Perhaps it does reduce adoption by those who have decided to not improve the OpenStreetMap data by sharing their potential improvements. Those who could improve OpenStreetMap data but who chose not to do so are excluding themselves from participating fully in the OpenStreetMap community. That is their choice. We as OpenStreetMap contributors see improving the data as a core value. * I hope that I have parsed your intent correctly, Luis. The paragraph I trimmed also discussed copyright case law and lack of case law for substantial in this context. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential datasource
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: the wikipedia has a nice otrs system, I supposed you could use it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS so let them sign something that allows the data to be used by wikipedia and that should cover osm as well. Well no, Mike, I don't think so. What rights a publisher grants to Wikipedia has nothing to do with what rights a publisher grants to OpenStreetMap. Wikipedia has no ownership interest in OpenStreetMap, nor vice-versa. Eric, please do take advantage of the imports@ and imports-us@ lists. You'll need to clear your plan and each step with them as you investigate, as well as talk-us@. The verbal permission is a good start. See if you can get it in writing. Others have had email with permission to publish the email, then add it to the wiki. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Best regards and happy mapping, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook
What do you suggest, Martin? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official confirmation of the exact license adopted. I disagree. Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a no-restrictions, equivalent-to-Public-Domain-license, like ODC-PDDL, will require a waiver or clarification from the municipality (or province / territory, or feds) that attribution as provided by OpenStreetMap (wiki page, probably listed on a sub-page) meets their interpretation of attribution. So, adoption of CC-anything-but-0 is bad for local OSM communities. It would likely work out okay in the end for those local OpenStreetMap communities. To my knowledge, every municipality approached for such a waiver has granted it. To OpenStreetMap Foundation at least. For the Open Data community at large, and for the municipality / governement itself, adoption of any restricting license is a disaster. For one thing, not every potential open project will be on the radar of a municipality in the same way that OpenStreetMap is. Too bad for that potential Open Data Project. Perhaps they'll get the waiver they need, perhaps they won't. Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. Another sign of bizarre, Open-blindness. I've had government open data representatives say to me, the equivalent of, So what if the license says something complicated. It's open, just do what you want. We won't go after anybody who breaks the license. We just need to be able to shut down anybody who embarrasses us. Ahem. No. 0) If you plan to grant wavers and exemptions anyway, why not just use an unrestricted license? Oh, did you want to only grant exemptions for projects / persons of whom you approve? That doesn't sound very open. 1) If you don't plan to enforce your license terms, why select (or worse, why draft) a license with restrictions? Select ODC-PDDL instead. 2) If you want developers to work with your data, do you want developers who care enough to read, understand and follow your terms, or not? Because your license with restrictions just cut out a portion of those developers. You can still keep the developers that don't read licenses, or don't care about the terms. Congratulations. 3) What, you want to shut down a use of the data that embarrasses you? No. It doesn't work that way. If Open Data can be shown to expose that your mayor is a pathologically lying, bullying, drug addict with possible links to organized crime, you don't get to shut down the analysis just because your boss finds it embarrassing. (It's just a hypothetical example) 4) If you really do plan to grant a waiver or exemption to every project / user who asks for it, shouldn't you have selected an unrestricted Open Data License that didn't place the burden of that extra waiver step upon you (and each potential user) ? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: [ ... ] Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. I agree that all PSI ought be public domain, with ODC-PDDL or CC0 or some other public domain instrument, since the sane default isn't the default. But calling attribution-only terms a closed-data-failure (BTW, what does that make ODbL? Is OSM the only entity in the world that can use non public domain terms and not be a closed data fail?) seems over the top. Government Open Data, and OpenStreetMap Open Data are different kettles of fish. And so different goal posts apply to each. Government Open Data is more-correctly Citizen Open Data. For that same government to attempt to then restrict the use of that data by the citizens who own it, and pay for it (and, in fact who own the government :-) ) well, that's the part that is over the top. :-) OpenStreetMap data is created by the OpenStreetMap contributors. Where those same contributors decide to place themselves, as a group, along the Open Spectrum has nothing to do with government, er, *strikeover* citizen data. It might also be a a long-standing and heated discussion amongst those same contributors. :-) Thanks, Mike. Cheers. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
Hi All,
This has come up before. HOT is part of a pilot for the initiative
Imagery to the Crowd (1). Representatives of HOT and the US
Government met multiple times in all day meetings to discuss what the
NextView license means as well as to have the vectors available under
ODbL.
You make it sound like nobody involved had permission to speak for the
OpenStreetMap Foundation. The Foundation and project would
potentially be put at risk by a failure in interpretation. I'd expect
LWG (at minimum, with Foundation legal representation and Board
oversight) would have to be involved for any such meeting. Otherwise,
you've got n-parties at a table making decisions for a party not
present.
Were any potential data donor, or imagery donor in this case, able to
state, I grant use of {dataset} to OpenStreetMap contributors for use
under the terms of the OpenStreetMap License and Contributor Terms,
well that might be a useful shortcut.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Regarding The New OSM License
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Rob smartt...@gmail.com wrote: Hello. Would like to ask / discuss with you the new license for OSM if you do not mind. I have a website that I would like to integrate/include OSM map tiles into. What I would like to clarify is if I would be required to share the data which is / has been collected through the website. The short answer is, It depends. The intent of the license is that improvements to the data would be shared with OSM. But it is also recognized that there are lasses of data that are inappropriate to include in OSM. Let me offer two examples: Restaurant reviews. It is generally accepted that we don't want subjective reviews of restaurants in OpenStreetMap. If you are collecting reviews we probably don't want them. Restaurant locations. There are many restaurants in OpenStreetMap and if you are collecting or correcting restaurant locations, then we would want them in OpenStreetMap. There are certainly many examples that can be drawn that will fall clearly in either of the above classes. There are probably many examples that would fall in a grey area between those examples. You've been careful to not reveal too much about your application, so I'll have to make some guesses about what's going on. This is obviously not legal advice. And is also without prejudice. For your use case 1) Because you state that you have addresses in your non-osm data, and because OSM has and wants addresses, there may be a requirement for you to share that address data. You might consider searching on OSM addresses if you are prevented from sharing the non-OSM addresses. For 2) it seem like you are geo coding based on OSM. If the data is interesting to us, it should be shared with OSM. For 3) seems like share alike is not triggered. For 4) seems like share alike is not triggered. If you can provide more information, perhaps we can take better guesses? best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] OpenStreetMap attribution in iPhoto
Looks like Apple is now crediting OpenStreetMap in version 1.0.1 of iPhoto, as reported by OSMer Beelsebob, on #osm IRC :-) http://cl.ly/421B0u2r0u0J3o0I3e3s ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy změna licence
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote: Hi! So lets start by saying that I don't like ODbL and I hate CT. There are three classes of data I uploaded to osm: a) Hand created data, most important paths in the woods. CT+ODbL, is okay for those. b) ODbL compatible - mass imports. CT+ODbL is okay for those, provided data from a) are kept. Richard convinced me that CT is not meant to be evil, and I can live with that. c) ODbL incompatible mass imports. Obviously these need to be removed. I have no power to change this. Mass imports were cities from wikipedia (place=*) and railway stations from around http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/188101 187327 I hope this helps, and I'd like to see some reply, thanks, Dear Pavel, I'll ask the LWG chair to add this matter to the discussion at the next LWG meeting. I expect that LWG will send you a formal reply. Until then, I'd like to thank you personally for granting permission for some of your contributions to continue as CT/ODbL, even with your stated disagreements with some aspects of ODbL and of CTs. Thank you also, to the other members of the OSM community who have been discussing the matter with you. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy změna licence
2012/4/2 Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com: Hi, I admit that I'm pretty confused right now... Are you saying that you've changed your mind and are willing to agree to ODbL+CT, except for the changesets containing imports of incompatible data? That would be really great! If this is that case, I personally volunteer to help track down your changesets containing the incompatible imports. The only two are the wikipedia imports of places and railway stations, is this correct? Best regards, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk PS: I've added to CC rebuild@ as well, just to let the guys there know that there could be a last-minute request for keeping most of the data from Pavel. Sorry, to all that will get this mail multiple times. Hi Petr, Yes, Pavel and RichardF had a discussion on IRC a few minutes ago and Pavel came to this decision. Petr, thank you for offering assistance with the un-relicenseable data. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Infringements - examples, analysis and request for removal
2012/3/31 Darko Sokolić darko.soko...@xnet.hr: Dear colleagues, I contributed to OpenStreetMap under CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. It was great pleasure, and I enjoyed it very much. I did not accept new Contributor Terms and new license. Also, I did not authorise anyone, in any way, to relicense or sublicense my contributions. Perhaps you'll publish the code you've written so that we can all benefit from it and improve it? Did you contact those mappers to ask about their sources and methods? That is a common approach to dispute resolution in the OSM community. If you are unable to resolve the dispute yourself you could ask other local mappers to assist you or contact the Data Working Group as a resource. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable. But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue? If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data (the enforce bit of my previous posting). I think you mean, respectfully request that the errant importer clean up their own mess. The DWG can be polled for help, but the community should attempt to resolve this first. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Ulf Möller remembered
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: I am deeply shocked this morning to learn of the murder of [our] friend Ulf. The OSMF site has a page where we can add our memories of Ulf. http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/01/18/ulf-m%C3%B6ller-1973-2012/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if someone wrote a note tag describing in colourful English what it is that he saw, and someone else then extracted proper tags from that text, then I'd be prepared to ascribe a copyright on the original prosaic note to the mapper but not copyright on the interpretation of that note made by someone else. I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how many false positives/negatives we get. Concern has been expressed in this thread about wrongfully considering clean what should still be considered tainted. Frederik, are your rules applied symmetrically? That is, will they also wrongfully consider objects tainted where they should be considered clean? So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted? I presume that the same types of errors can occur in both directions. Is that correct? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Dear All, LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition. Draft minutes are here. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlAWomOiGxhgG8 Of particular interest are: - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position? - is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in reconciling the data base? As seen here: We discussed the moving of nodes and whether they could be clean: We have seen a concern expressed where an node is moved by an agreed mapper and that is the last position, should it not be deemed clean (even if created dirty)? Conclusion: Yes, we are OK with that, the assumption being that the move is made in good faith with a reference source, (survey, Bing imagery, …). We consider that the creation of an object and its id to be a system action rather than individual creative contribution. Tags on the same node must be considered separately. The LWG would like to adopt this as policy and would be grateful for community feedback. Frederik has recently proposed a new tag, odbl=clean, to be set by mappers who will vouch for the odbl compliance of any object. The LWG would like to adopt this as policy and would be grateful for community feedback. We look forward to your thoughtful, insightful feedback. Best regards and Happy Mapping, Richard Weait on behalf of LWG ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: Of particular interest are: - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position? While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of the cases encompassed by this question : the cases where the edit is correlated with a change of source. I asked this question a week ago in the Are objects still tainted when they are edited from a better source ? thread here and it has not been answered yet. And we're listening. Tell us and be specific. Some of us have been remapping for a while. Give examples. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] simpler reconciliation of data
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] I do have a suggestion to help identify which tags/properties are the ones contributed by somebody who declined or who can't be reached. Now I have to go an dig in the history to check who added names and other properties, when recreating ways and nodes. I'd prefer for this time consuming task to be automated. Is there a way to accomplish that? I understand the full history of an object is needed to do it, so it'be supplementary to what the license change plugin does already. Maybe you could point me in the right direction in the JOSM code and I could try to do it myself. The josm license change plugin helps a lot and the new (yesterday?) history display helps as well. The new history display (select object, in the history panel select show) shows the list of contributors as before, but with the contributor CT status as well. I have an idea for what a display of good / not-good tags might look like here[1], but I don't know if anybody will take a shot at implementing it. [1] http://weait.com/files/CT-history-mockup_0.png ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to modify data provider license (WMATA)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: As I've had no response from this list, Hi Josh, I believe that standardized licenses for Open Data are a Very Good Thing. Perhaps, you can show them the benefit of selecting a license from Open Data Commons? Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Irony, was [talk-au]
[Redirected from talk-au to legal-talk due to topic of discussion] Andrew Laughton wrote: Irony is when you buy a shiny new GPS loaded with OSM data, only to find out that you need to pay a license fee to be able to update the map. Gotta love that new license. [Response from Richard Fairhurst] You've lost me. How does ODbL differ from CC-BY-SA here? Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding compatibility of CC BY SA license versions
2011/7/11 Holger Schöner nume...@ancalime.de: Hello, [I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these questions] I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who wants to allow OpenStreetMappers to use these aerial images. So far, the terms clearly do not allow this, but the provider is willing to change the terms. He has made a new draft, where he restricts use of the images data directly, but allows derivative works, provided they be placed under CC BY SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria. I assume that the Austrian version of CC BY SA is compatible with the (generic/unported?) one OSM uses currently? (Can someone confirm this?) What about the compatibility of Versions 2.0 and 3.0? If we are allowed to redistribute derived work in Version 3.0, can we do so also in Version 2.0, as this is what OSM requires currently in my understanding? [Another issue of course is that we should be allowed dual licensing including ODbL, but I already clarified this to the image provider] Is there any other thing I should ensure being present in the license granted, to be usable by us? New data and sources must currently be compatible with CC-By-SA, and ODbL. Preferably also CT/ODbL. CC BY SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria is not sufficient permission because of the requirement for ODbL, but also because OSM is currently CC-By-SA v2.0. CC-By-SA does have an or later clause, but does not permit or earlier. ___ 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 Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 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? 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? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] active contributor
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb: The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to contribute. It it defined anywhere what contribute means? From the contributor terms v1.2.4 An active contributor is defined as: a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any three calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds to a request to vote within 3 weeks. I've always equated edited the project with submitted a changeset. Submitting a changeset is something the OSM values and is relatively easy bar to reach. I would also certainly consider some exceptions. 1) Spammers, once in a while, submit diary entries full of spam links. 2) Some accounts have submitted changeset of bad data in the form of either vandalism, or map spam. 3) Hypothetically, a contributor could upload gpx tracks and never edit. I suggest that 1) and 2) are not active contributors. I think 3) could be valuable, but is not necessarily a contributor. Does anybody know if there are any accounts / users in category 3? Thoughts? p.s. I've changed the subject: for this sub-thread. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] application of ODBL to an extarct of OSM obtained via jxapi
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Word in quotes below relate to the meanings given them by ODbL Assume I use jxapi to download an extract of the main OSM database . Is the downloaded extract a Derivative Database, or since the download was provided by OSM does the downloaded data qualify as simply a Database? Does not §4.4b answer this[1]? b. For the avoidance of doubt, Extraction or Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents into a new database is a Derivative Database and must comply with Section 4.4. As a practical matter, we almost always deal with the OSM db in terms of a smaller extraction. We create tiles for a few blocks with many object types, or tiles with only country boundaries and oceans covering the whole planet. Planet files and planet history files are probably the most frequent use that considers the complete db at one time. So it might be a derivative database of OSM, but it seems indistinguishable from the OSM database broken into a manageable chunk ;-) Why? Do you have a specific use in mind? Best regards, Richard [1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explictly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). This currently numbers 406 in total compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms. They or our forking folks may wish to grab a planet dump now and another one just before the phase 5 cut-over to ODbL. Planet dumps are generally made every Wednesday as of 11:01 UK time and become available 3 days later. Next week's version will probably be made on Tuesday due to the coming UCL shutdown. I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. The License Working Group will continue listening to all feedback. Re: planet files. It is my understanding that the planet file generation job _starts_ at about 1:11 on each Wednesday morning, London time. The planet job generally completes about a day and a half later. The Full history planet jobs are generated less often and generally take about three days to complete. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Also the current acceptance numbers are ~166,000 accepting, vs. 406 declined. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Import from Ushahidi Libya Instance
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote: Legal-talk, any opinions or insights on this question? == Mikel Maron == +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 5:18:11 PM Subject: Import from Ushahidi Libya Instance You may be aware, UN OCHA has been coordinating a Ushahidi instance to map reports from the the Libya Crisis. http://libyacrisismap.net/. OSM is the base map. They've geocoded about 150 places and POI, and have recruited OSM folks to conflate this list with OpenStreetMap. http://internal.libyacrisismap.net/volunteers/team-geolocation/coordinates-database The issue is that the source for the geocoding is listed, but not always licensed under a license compatible with OSM. Even if locations were derived from non-compatible license sources, my thinking has been that this is non-substantial and non-systematic, and therefore might be permissible to import. Data is only collected based on select needs to geocode reports. The numbers are just over 150. According to the Substantial Guideline of the ODbL, an extract from OSM like this would not trigger the viral terms of the license. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline Question is then twofold. One, we haven't yet adopted the ODbL, so how much could a guideline apply. And two, how does the concept of non-substantial apply to importing data? I think there's a good chance it's ok, in which case all data could be brought in. The alternative would then be to exempt particular POI from conflation, or simply geocode them again using fully clear sources. My thought: Incompatible sources are incompatible. Good intentions do not trump incompatible sources. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Possible OSM copyright violations
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Ciprian Talaba cipriantal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would be interested to know if this is the place where we can discuss possible OSM copyright violations or should I direct my concerns directly to the Data Working Group? The problems I noticed are related to some well known digital map providers and I don't want to harm any possible future relations based on some presumed issues. What do you think I should do? Thanks, Ciprian An email to either of the following is probably a good place to start. d...@osfoundation.org - for inappropriate data that appears to be in OSM database or to le...@osmfoundation.org - for inappropriate use of OSM data without complying with OSM license. ___ 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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, john wilbanks wilba...@creativecommons.org wrote: Yup, I said this: 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. Dear Mike and John, I understand that Creative Commons declined to participate in drafting ODbL when invited. Why is that? Why the sudden interest in data now, after having declined the opportunity earlier? Best regards, Richard ___ 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 Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and contributor terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PGS coastline
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:56 AM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change? Asking on mailing list, since there should be about 32 other accounts used for the import and controlled by other people, so presumably we want them all to make a consistant decision. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog PGS is the first listed in the import catalog page and marked as PD and Okay. Any reason to think otherwise? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, time period for reply to a new license change (active contributor)
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Michael Collinson mike@... writes: - In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at least several months of publicity and discussion before the final formal vote announcement. At the moment there is something of a credibility gap because while we are assured that any major licence change in future would have a formal vote, that principle isn't being followed for the ODbL introduction. The current license upgrade gives each contributor even more voice than they would have in a vote, as they may choose to exclude their contributions from future license considerations. That you see a credibility gap strains logic and ignores each of the votes, polls and surveys to date. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] RAND Corporation license violation
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: I was checking some papers at work today and accidentally found this license violation (both Attribution and Share-Alike) by the RAND Corporation: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1100.pdf (Page 20(42)) It seems like a modified Marble screenshot to me (no attribution whatsoever). Yes, that map on the top half of page 42 of a 164 page report does look similar to http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36lon=119.6zoom=4layers=M Rand appears to credit Central China Television. What do you suggest that the OSM community should do about this? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, time period for reply to a new license change (active contributor)
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry that I come quite late with this, it might be too late, and it was bothering me occasionally already for some months: if we really decided in the future to change the license, isn't 3 weeks a little short for such an important issue? I am referring to the time span required for an active contributor to reply to an email from the foundation. I feel this could be extended to say 6-8 weeks, because it is not completely improbable that someone is not reachable for 3 weeks, and I don't see a need for such a hurry in a case important like a license change (note we are now occupied with the current license change and discussions for over 3 years). Of course a potential new license change would most likely not appear from nowhere, and implying a benevolent foundation this is maybe not an issue, still for formal reasons I think this time span could be extended. You should also presume a benevolent community as well. Surely we won't all be on vacation and fail to check mail at the same time as a sudden call for a vote? The voter who is out of contact during a vote period will still have the response of the rest of the community to speak for them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL / CT and CC-BY-SA Pictures / Texts / Video
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:45 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me if this question has already been raised. I am currently involved in a project that has chosen OSM as cartographic base for a portal for tourists. There will be an ontology to allow for semantic research and the idea is to display POIs, pictures and other multimedia content on an OSM map (in the web and on mobile devices). Currently it is thought to have all multimedia content (where possible) in CC-BY-SA. After the planned license changeover to ODbL: 1. Would it be possible to display this content (CC-BY-SA) atop an OSM map? 2. Will we have to release the content of the ontology / thesaurus database in ODbL ? Will we have to import this stuff into OSM (I guess no) or will it be sufficient to have it available? 3. If 1 is no, would CC-BY be compatible with ODbL? (My guess is yes, but I appreciate a comment from someone more into the topic). Be more specific about your ontology. How does your ontology interact with an unmodified OSM database? In general: - a displayed map created from an unchanged OSM database would be a Produced Work. - a Produced Work requires a notice Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available OSM.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). - a Produced Work may require additional license-related information, depending on your other license obligations. For example, including CC-By Icons, or CC-By-SA video in your Produced Work gives you obligations under those licenses. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] per changeset relicensing
There have been previous discussions regarding per changeset relicensing. I'd like to know if developing the tools to allow per changeset relicensing is worthwhile. There will be some effort involved in the coding, so it would be good to know in advance if this option will be used by many or few mappers. The intent of per changeset relicensing is to permit those with a general agreement to the terms and license, but with a specific concern about a source for a particular changeset to relicense their data, but not relicense that data about which they are concerned. Example: Prof. Mapper maps by GPS and survey as she travels. She also helped a friend map in Erehwon, and added street names from Erehwon Council data. Erehwon council have given permission for derivation to OSM under CC-By-SA, but discussion is continuing re: CT/ODbL, Prof. Mapper agrees with CT/ODbL but recognizes that She doesn't have permission yet to relicense the Erehwon street names. Prof. Mapper could accept CT/ODbL for the bulk of her mapping, and mark the seven Erehwon changesets a with a checkbox for Do Not Relicense and with a note, Pending Erehwon Council permission. This allows several options in the future. It points out datasets and mappers with interest in discussing relicensing with a specific data provider. Should Erehwon Council agree to ODbL prior to any change over date, the data can be included. If not, Prof. Mapper may continue with their unencumbered data. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WFVK6XS ___ 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
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open Data Commons. I wouldn't know. On the other hand, Mike Linksvayer, from Creative Commons, joined the License Working Group conference call on 18 Jan 2011. The discussion was cordial. I found it interesting to hear the CC perspective on things. So I wouldn't say that a turf war is brewing between CC and OSM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] US Rails to Trails database
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Richard Masoner rmaso...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm a rank newbie at OSM, but getting into it because of my interest in mapping bike facilities. The US Rails to Trails Conservancy has an outstanding database of bicycling trails. This Traillink database is the basis of Google's bike layer. I've read the legal FAQs for using data from other parties and understand it's best to get specific permission on data imports. I asked Rails to Trails about licensing their data to OSM and they say they've been thinking about it and asked me to put them in touch with somebody official at OSM. They also indicated they would like some kind of attribution where their data is used. So, umm, who do I point them to? You can have them contact the OSMF License Working Group le...@osmfoundation.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
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. 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. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [okfn-discuss] Law and the GeoWeb
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: I recognise some of the names on that list. ;-) - Rob. Sure. And the typo as well. Everybody and their dog get the name wrong. Right - OpenStreetMap Wrong - Open Street Maps Sigh. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain? Indeed. But I think that you are right that this is a side note. Why not start that discussion on the wiki, or in a separate thread here? I've changed the subject to reflect this. What would be your preference for the future tile license? Ed, do you have a preferred future tile license? Would it be okay with you if I published my future tiles under a license that differs from that of openstreetmap.org tiles? I think it is a net-benefit for the project and the community if future tiles can be published anywhere along the spectrum of Proprietary ---Some rights reserved---No rights reserved But the main OSM site and tile server is a special case. We should aim to set a good example. What should the future tile license be? Is it simplest to keep the tile license the same as it is now rather than risk compatibility problems with downstream consumers of tiles? Should the main site create tiles under a selection of licenses? Do we aim for minimum change in the tile license, or do we aim for maximum compatibility for the tiles by changing the tile license to PDDL or CC-Zero? I am not suggesting a change in tile usage policy. Tiles should still be primarily a service to assist mappers, not an unrestricted service for tile consumers. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb Various draft versions have been around for a while. I think we've improved the CT with each revision. LWG have had some wonderful suggestions from members of the community that are incorporated in the current draft. On the other hand it feels like there have been more folks with criticisms of CT v1.0 than there are folks who have taken the time to offer a patch. So I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the contributor terms? Is this an improvement? What aspects address your concerns regarding previous versions? What aspects could be further improved and how? ___ 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 Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com wrote: the auckland city council has this as its copyright notice. how compatible would this be with cc-by-sa, or odbl? http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/pages/Copyrightstatement.aspx if it isn't, which items are incompatible? Wow. Do they even have (and offer) data? It's not immediately obvious to be if they do offer data. 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. Municipalities should publish data under PDDL,[1] to limit their liability, and make the data available to the widest possible audience. I shouldn't critique their license. I've just had dinner and a lovely bottle of wine. Let's just say I wouldn't touch it. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] We Are Changing The License missing relevant information
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: I just answered a user's question on how to accept the new contributor terms. I'll quote his statement here: ''How do we accept the new licence??'' JOSM sent me here but I cannot find a way to accept the licence. Users may accept the license from their API user account on the settings page. or use this link http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:05 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:44 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license reading the legal FAQ for the license change: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ there is a paragraph that looks strange to me: ... - we may take the view that those who have made small contributions, but cannot be contacted, would relicence their data under the new licence. We will enable them to contact us at a later date. this part looks like a problem to me, as it is opt-out instead of the always proclaimed opt-in, or have I misunderstood this? Or is this refering to anonymous edits only? Unfortunately the wiki seems to offer conflicting views on what might happen. The section you quoted [1] does indeed seem to indicate that contributions from some people who have not responded will be left in the database. However further up the same page [2] it says remove any data from any users who do not respond or respond negatively (the hard bit) , and again here [3] it says What do we do with the people who have Declined or not responded? Their contributions would not be available under the future ODbL version of the database. David David, what would you suggest? Can you see a situation where discarding the data is not required in the case of non-response? For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys, changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory relicensing question. Should we revert their changes back to Amenity? As another example, a user adds one POI, perhaps their business, to OSM and nothing else. They never respond. Do we remove the data? As another example, an editor makes many mass edits around the planet, arbitrarily changing keys/values to match their recent wiki postings, then answers no to relicensing. What do you suggest is the right answer for each of these situations? Would your answer have universal support from the community? Can you create some other situations and responses that will find universal support from the community? ___ 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 Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We must really endeavour to better enable people to draw in non-OSM data at the rendering stage so that they don't feel tempted to drop their rubbish into OSM just so that they get a nice map rendered. Bravo. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Manitoba Lands Initiative data
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: Hello, The Manitoba Lands Initiative has a wealth of data available on their website, and I wanted to pass the license by everyone here. From what I understand of it, using their data in OSM is perfectly fine. Wow. Compared to other municipal / government licenses, this one seems pretty clueful. I like 1.03.4 and 1.04. 1.03[ ... ] the User is hereby granted a limited licence to [ ... ] 4. process, analyze or otherwise use these Data in the development of new, derived works or value added products. and 1.04The User may sell, lease or sublicense the Data contained in new, derived works or value added products That all sounds good to me. Anybody else care to offer an opinion? The one issue which should be clarified with the data provider is this. They provide a copyright statement. OSM would like to place that on the wiki to meet their requirements. Placing it on the data is a bit arcane as only motivated / technical folks will find it, and fragile, as others can change it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
Dear Eric, Your replies from Grant (on the server team) and Emilie (OSMF Board member) are from people who would normally deal with these issues. ;-) As far as I know Map Maker does not use OSM data, but no consumer of OSM data is obliged to tell OSM that they are using OSM data. They are only obliged to meet their obligations to the OSM license. So currently, consumers of OSM data would be obliged to have a credit for OSM data and a notification of CC-By-SA, and in most cases a link to both of those would be appropriate as well. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote: On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker and OSM editors are using similar sources. Yes, I understand this and the context you are explaining it in. But how does this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data? This edit was not some recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and others, it was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very unique and deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended up in Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now. I was just shocked to see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM coastline, and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if they are now using OSM data. In short, there really is no other 'similar source' in this case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or got it from someone else who got it directly from OSM. Dear Eric, It is hard for me to say what happened. What you describe above does make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a source after your edit, but before you repaired it. If I haven't overlooked something; perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee mistake? And if there is no other innocent explanation; you didn't make the edit on GMM yourself did you? ;-) Then 80n's description above is correct. Infringement is much more likely to be a result of ignorance rather than malice. It is still infringement but it might best be resolved with a please and thank you than with a nasty-gram. I do still recommend that you share the location and details with OSMers you trust with more experience than you have; you did describe yourself as a newbee. You might, as 80n described, decide to pursue this with GMM yourself. I'd probably try to reach the GMM contributor who made that edit, if that information is available. Or, you may decide to ask somebody else in the community to do that for you. Perhaps somebody at your local OSM meetups, mapping parties or local chapter. Or you can report this to the Data Working Group though they prefer if you have made some initial attempt at contact on your own. If GMM does not provide a method to contact editors, the idea of contacting Google Map Mapker as a whole does sound a bit daunting. I think your point about not publishing the location is worth considering. In past, other contributors have provided links to examples. That might make an interesting discussion on this list outside of the context of this specific edit. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. You seem to be sending your emails from OppositeLand, JohnSmith. The Contributor Terms, and specifically the relicensing term in term three are prudent because we know that it is impossible to know what license will be best for OSM in 6, 10 or 50 years. That you assert that CC-By-SA is right for OSM now and will be the right license for OSM forevermore makes you the one claiming perfect foresight. That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. As others have pointed out, OSM-F expects contributors to trust it without putting any trust in the contributors... Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith? The OSMF trusts OpenStreetMap contributors. The OSMF _are_ OpenStreetMap contributors. The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM contributors JohnSmith? I think that you have demonstrated that you do not trust current OSM contributors. You treat them with what appears to be contempt. You won't even provide a bare minimum of context in your changeset comments for other OSM contributors. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. Really? What will future generations want, 80n? I predict that future generations will want Flying cars sure, but we were promised those decades ago. :) On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data and OSM contributors are enthusiastic about it. You know perfectly well that OS opened their data in part because OSM changed the very ground on which OS stands. You know that perfectly well because you were and are part of making that change. The world will continue to change as will the world of Open Geo Data. OSM will continue to be part of making that change. And future OSM contributors will want to adapt to those very changes that they are making as well. We have a responsibility to do the right thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. Forks and relicensing will always be expensive for open communities. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and make it slightly less expensive for future OSM contributors to adapt to the changing legal environment around them by using a relicensing provision in term three. To fail to do so now is to leave a mess for future OSM contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and compromise. Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed or not. But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. OpenStreetMap - It's Fun. It's Free. You can Help. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Well we try to answer questions as quickly as possible. Some answers depend on further meetings, others depend on replies from busy professionals. Some answers get lost in the mundane reality of day to day life. Here are a couple of answers for questions that were asked a few weeks back. Not your questions perhaps, but answers to community questions nonetheless. DRAFT http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_FAQ DRAFT As it says, this is a draft, so expect more answers over time. You ask again how much data loss is acceptable? And this has been answered before as, That depends on the local and global context of the particular data. I don't think that this question is unanswered so much as it is unanswerable. Of course every contributor will have their own opinion on how much, and on a particular piece of the planet that may hold more interest for them personally. That's not an answer either, but it does point out the Sisyphean scale of finding One True Answer to your repeated question. Your question regarding legal council suggests that the author of ODbL is the only lawyer that OSMF board have relied upon for advice regarding ODbL and the license change process. This is incorrect. So what you see as the biggest conflict of interest in the project does not exist. As a brief history of OSMF and lawyers, OSMF have had two different firms agree to provide legal advice for OSMF. The second still serve OSMF after taking over when the first firm was unable to respond in a timely matter. I thank both firms for their interest in OpenStreetmap and their support of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. The OpenStreetMap community as a whole, not just the OSMF membership, were invited to contribute to the drafts, release candidates and final version of the ODbL. The Contributor Terms were written by OSMF council at another law firm, not by the ODbL author. Other lawyers in several jurisdictions, from additional firms, have offered opinions at various times on various matters. You ask when the tools will be ready to analyse the impact of licensing questions. Largely the answer is the same as for questions about any software tool in any open project; they'll be ready when they are ready. As an alternative answer they will be ready when you write them. But flip answers are not really my style, so forgive my brief non-answer. During the LWG meeting this week, one participant discussed the tool they were creating. So some work on these visualization tools is proceeding. Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling should be considered for reversion if the owner chooses not to accept ODbL/CT, you should participate in that discussion. Is a simple import of data published elsewhere a contribution that earns the possibility of reversion or is it purely mechanical? On the other hand, we're also answering questions and revising text for additional clarity, and checking revisions with lawyers. So things will keep taking time. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:59 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: In the implementation plan under phase 4 it asks Final cut-off. Community Question... What do we do with the people who have Declined or not responded? [1] In order to speed up the final phases of the implementation plan, and in particular the move from PHASE 4 to DONE, would it be best to ask the above question now, rather than waiting till we get to phase 4 , and then initiating the community discussion? Alternatively, if this question has already been asked and decided, and I've missed it, could the wiki be edited so we know what will happen. Alternatively, if the response at the moment is we don't know what we will do until we know how many people decline or don't respond, so we cant ask the community at the moment, could we at least know what the options are likely to be? David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_4_-_CC-BY-SA_edits_no_longer_accepted._.28Phase_3_.2B_8_weeks_subject_to_critical_mass.29 Part of this question is being discussed here [2] more as what to do with the data rather than the people. As an open question I'm surprised to see so little discussion on this thread so far. It may be that we're just waiting to see what the visualization tools look / work like. Still the question, what exactly to do in various situations is interesting. How does one decliner-changeset in the middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further position changes? From a purely what to do with the people point of view, I'd say the people are driving that bus. They'll decide to continue, or to increase or reduce their participation. Mappers do that every day. The project has nothing to say about it. Though after the license upgrade, the decision to continue would be under the community-agreed license and terms. I'd expect decline accounts to be kept for historical reasons though they would have to be deactivated from an editing perspective. What do you think, David? [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines ornon-responses
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:14 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: 1) Those who do not want to, or can not. agree to the CT's and make an decision not to accept the CT's. 2) Those previous mappers who are no longer active and so won't even have made a choice between accepting or not. In the case of group (1) it seems wrong to me to disregard their wishes and just leave the data in. It would be equally wrong to disregard the wishes of those in case 2. Being uncontactable is not a justification for abusing a person's rights. OSM used to be very respectful of other people's copyright. It used to be one of the values that was held very highly. But now it seems to think that it can just trample all over the rights of the people who built it. I'm ashamed that OSM is no longer the body that it once was. It has lost my respect. I neglected to address those who don't respond either way in my earlier reply but I'd expect to treat their contributions with the same care as the decliners. 80n have you presumed I had malice where I only failed to address a sub-question? Thanks. I don't see where David suggested anything that would deserve your ire, either. Even if you disagree with what either David or I said, you would paint the entire OSM project with your loss of respect and shame, rather than engaging in the discussion? I'm not sure I see what it is that you are reacting to in such a visceral way. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this clickthrough agreement compatible with OSM?
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote: I've been considering bringing in some of the data available at http://www.datasf.org . Most of it is behind this clickthrough agreement: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp . I think it would be okay but I thought I would ask here before I really started doing any work on it. That license looks pretty bad to me, from an including the data in OSM point of view. I don't see any grant of rights to the user beyond the permission to download. Section IV grants the city all rights to derivatives and no rights to you to make those derivatives. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the or got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. Perhaps any lawyers on this list would comment on this matter in general? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike license written especially for databases. If you are a Public Domain license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you to give this one a good try. The Contributor Terms is expressly written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best without all this fuss about procedure. And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes. One question: Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the Contributor Terms? In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to resolve the future copyright disputes. If you have derived data from a source that allows deriving to OSM then I'd say you are fine. This would cover tracing from aerial imagery. If we were dealing with the world of copyright and creative works this would be similar to taking a photograph of a bonsai plant after being granted permission to take the photograph. If you've imported data from a source that allows importation to OSM, again I'd say that you are okay. If you've imported data from a source based only on license compatibility in the last three years you'd have to have been uninformed or thoughtless to do it without giving the license upgrade some consideration as stated in the import guidelines since January 2008. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines It would probably be pretty embarrassing for anybody who made that sort of error in judgment or declaration of ignorance, so they might be a little prickly about the subject or try to make it seem like someone else's fault rather than admitting their error. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip through, then fix them in case of complaints. Which goes against the usual OSM policy of rejecting it if unsure, rather than accepting it. Yes and no. When it comes to using external sources etc., we always say when in doubt, don't. But when we have to remove someone's contributions because of a copyright violation, we usually do exactly what I have outlined above - make an honest attempt, but accept that a few fringe cases may remain which we'd then deal with if there is concrete complaint. We also presume good faith. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: If there is anything under development it would be good if we could see it. It is unlikely to be a trivial piece of code and I'd be very surprised if it can be developed by September 1st if it hasn't already been started. You've referred to your arbitrary September first deadline several times. When did you first suggest September first had some significance? It was weeks ago. The LWG, OSMF Board, and implementation plan have no September first deadline of which I am aware. I don't recognize anything significant about your arbitrary deadline but it seems to be important to you. I'm pretty sure that the implementation plan currently calls for more time than the calendar provides between now and September first. Avoid the rush. Consider your arbitrary marker to be passed. Now what? You declare failure? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] September 1st represents a reasonable timeframe, based on the currently published implementation plan Dear 80n, Absolutely not. From the implementation plan. Phase 2 scheduled as 5 or 10 weeks. Phase 3 as 8 weeks. Plus undefined time for technical cut-over work. How do you find your fictional September first deadline reasonable? Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Hello I searched without success in the Wiki who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed. In http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Database_License/Implementation_Planoldid=488199 up to 2010-06-22 this questions stayed open: Week 13 (approximate) Final cut-off. Community Question... What do we do with the people who have said no or not responded? But the discussion (and decision) seems to be much older ...? The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only, have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you suggest that they should not have a choice? If the OSMF Board were to decide, okay, that's it. All the data is relicensed without asking contributors, is that in line with their mandate to assist OpenStreetMap but not control it? What would you suggest as an alternative? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Matija Nalis mnalis-gm...@voyager.hr wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:05:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: TimSC wrote: In that case, is it legally sound if I download my own contribution due, to database rights? Difficult to say - I can see an argument either way. A database right certainly exists and governs extraction from the database; but if what you're extracting is exactly what you put in (with the trivial exception of node ID renumbering), it's very very difficult to argue that any additional rights have been created. Regardless, restricting what you can do with your own contributions would be such a blatantly unreasonable and unfair thing to do that I am 100% sure OSMF wouldn't do it. 100% ? I'd never play with such numbers, not in HA systems, and much less in case where politics and IP laws might be involved :) Sure, they all might the great guys as of now, but suppose OSM becomes importatnt enough to big players, who says TeleAtlas or Google or someone won't get say new 1000 members in OSMF and have a strong majority of votes to pass any such thing? it's not like such things never happend (just rembemer OOXML ballot-stuffing at ISO when Microsoft managed to buy out majority of new country representatives just to get fasttracked) That's why it is important to be at least minimally aware of OSMF and the people and activities involved. If you don't tell them what you want, they can only do the things that you want by coincidence. This appears to address Tim's concern. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 5. Except as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents. Tim, does this address your concern? Will you support the License upgrade? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote: So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group. When do we get an answer to this question set? Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers. It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own sector of the planet? Dear Liz, you say, It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss... I see two problems with this, Liz. Who are you suggesting is happy? Also, there will be no data loss. No data will be lost. Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published planets, for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss. The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA. We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the license upgrade, or we will not. We'll have that informed choice. As we should. Do you advocate just taking data and re-licensing it without consent, Liz? I don't. That informed choice means that some contributors will choose not to proceed. At a minimum those who are unreachable or deceased will not be able to assent to the license upgrade. And those who make the informed decision to not proceed will have their wishes honoured as well. It is my preference that each contributor agree with ODbL and CT and allow their data to be promoted to the ODbL-licensed future OpenStreetMap. But still you create friction with your fiction. I see ODbL as a better way forward for OSM. Not just because it is designed for data from the start. Not just because it is designed in the same Attribution, Share Alike spirit that lead to the choice of the unfortunately inappropriate CC-By-SA in the first place. But also because ODbL makes improvements over CC-By-SA. I think that it is a big improvement that data is SA and Produced Works may be licensed differently. One prominent OSM contributor provides code and data and much more to OSM, but can't use the very data he contributed to OSM in his publication because he must maintain copyright in the images. Why is that? He's already given the data to OSM. Under ODbL, we fix that. He can render the data in a way that adds value for his readers, and maintain copyright in his publication. And you restate the question, how much promoted data is enough to proceed. I'll restate the answer. The same answer that you have had before. It is impossible to know how much will be promoted because the contributors have not yet had their say. And it is impossible to know how much will be enough because not all data is equal. So we will have to find out. All of us. Together. Let's see what the result is. In which ways would you like to help? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, here's an interesting one. Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). Now I would like to make a slippy map overlay where areas are coloured red or green or different shades in between according to how much data is missing from the current ODbL dataset compared to the old CC-BY-SA data set. The idea being, if an area is red, it may be worth going there and resurveying the area because edits have been lost. I wonder if this is possible at all. Behind the scenes, I would have to compare the old CC-BY-SA data with the new data set to find out what happened. My tiles would be a derived work from the CC-BY-SA data set and as such licensed CC-BY-SA, no problem there. However, I would in all likelihood be creating an interim database derived from the new ODbL data set and the old CC-BY-SA data set. ODbL would require that I release that database under ODbL. But CC-BY-SA requires that if I release the database it must be under CC-BY-SA exclusively. Thus I cannot release the database, thus I cannot publish the tiles. Or you create a thin-line style and render both tile sets without a background color One set red, one set green, both 50% transparent. Then you allow the user to combine the two tile sets, one over the other, in the browser. You don't compare or mix the data bases. The user is looking at produced works, ccbysa for the ccbysa tiles, your choice for the ODbL tiles. And the user has the option of republishing the overlay as long as they follow your licensing requirements. Or, just use them for personal reference and go mapping. How hard was that? Frederik posts many wonderful hypothetical situations. ;-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Compatible licenses
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: * Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA, CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission This is a tremendous improvement in my opinion. I'd like to see every data publisher as informed and enthusiastic about having contributed to OpenStreetMap as the everyday mapper. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Liz wrote: And the arrangement was that whether the licence change went ahead or not depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data Firstly, if anyone ever said how many people then that was a mistake, because the number of people is of little interest, it is the amount of their contributions that matters. I feel that the number of contributors is very important. Secondly, I think Richard Weait found good words for this at SOTM: Nobody in OSMF or the license working group wants to hurt OSM. They are all mappers, they all want the project to prosper. They will not take a decision that is bad for the project. It is ultimately the board of directors of OSMF who will have to decide whether the license change can go ahead and they will make this decision once the situation is clear. Thank you, Frederik. I'd like to repeat here something else that I tried to express during the discussion in Girona, as well. Many of the questions regarding the minimum requirements etc., seem to be based on the uncertainty of what if? I wish that I could make that uncertainty go away and tell you what the numbers will be. But I just can't. Anybody who can suggest a way to accurately predict the user numbers and data % and location and the extent where blank spots might arise should help us to allay these fears. But I think that there are simply too many variables to predict the future in a sensible way. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] using OSM on TV
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:36 AM, visio...@petml.com wrote: I'm trying to determine what is required of my company with regard to the on-air broadcast of OSM data. I sell a product used in TV news. Part of my product consists of maps. Sometimes my maps use OSM data. Not always, in fact most clients are not using OSM data. Either way, for the ones that do I need to know what is required. I can't seem to find the requirements by searching the archives or reading the website. I see lots of opinions and suggestions but no hard decisions. I will be adding an OSM link in my application's acknowledgments section stating this app may make use of OSM data, a link to the web site, etc. However, I simply can't guarantee that my customers will attribute OSM during the broadcast. Furthermore, I don't see anywhere that describes exactly what my obligations are. Like I said previously, lots of opinions and suggestions but no hard requirement. Seems like there is a lot of wiggle room if someone simply did not want to attribute OSM in any way. Can someone comment and/or correct me if I'm wrong? Can anyone definitively state what is required with respect to OSM attribution for use in a TV broadcast? I will be doing the following: * letting my customers know we use OSM data * added the usual OSM acknowledgment in my application * add some sort of acknowledgment on my website that my application may make use of OSM data OpenStreetMap does not have concrete guidance for you yet. I wish that we did. Please consider Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit So, if you or the broadcaster add a watermark to the video, and OpenStreetMap and cc watermark should be added. This is best because the attribution and license will stay with the clip if it is removed from the rest of the broadcast. By all rights this clip should be permitted to be removed from the broadcast and distributed further as ccbysa. Less desirable, because it loses immediacy and could be separated from the work, would be a credit roll at the show end. Again, let reasonable and similar prominence be your guide. If you get XL font size and n seconds on screen, so does OSM / CC so something like: Map segment by Vision TV (c) 2010 Maps and data ccbysa OpenStreetMap and contributors I like the idea of OSM maps used in broadcasts. Thanks for recognizing that the OSM and CC attribution are your obligation. The license extract quoted above is from the text of ccbysa, section 4c http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., French translation of the Work by Original Author, or Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New OSM contributor licensing under ODbL and CC-BY-SA started today
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Mike Collinson m...@... writes: - When enough contributors have agreed, we cut over to licensing the current database under ODbL, (And a static snapshot of the database is also made forever under CC-BY-SA). If for some reason this event never happens, the fail safe is that licensing of all contributions under CC-BY-SA simply continues. Surely this is two separate steps: - begin offering a licence to the whole database under ODbL, - stop offering a licence under CC-BY-SA. They might happen at the same time but they don't have to. I expect that the last ccbysa database will continue to be available as a planet file, just as older ccbysa planet files are available now. I suspect that proceeding with two active databases would be impractical, just as we don't support active editing on the 2006-01-01 planet file version of the database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ccbysa Prominence clause
Recent OSM-derived sites have included beautiful vanity logos on the map. As an example, the recent isochronous map of Paris: http://www.isokron.com/default/ Has a beautiful, bright isokron logo and link to their site. But I wonder if this meets with the Prominence clause of our ccbysa license? The full text of the cc-by-sa (v2.0) license includes this clause regarding prominence Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode In our example above I'm comparing the isokron logo-link with the OSM/ccbysa link at the bottom of the page: large colour isokron logo - approx. 300x76 pixels - bright colours - link to www.isokron.com and OSM / ccbysa credit - approx. 175 x 10 pixels - grey on white - links to ccbysa text and openstreetmap.org The OSM / ccbysa link text appears to be fully compliant with our guidance on the wiki[1]. It has links to both OpenStreetMap and the CC license text. But the prominence? Not quite as good. The isokron logo is ~13 times larger than the OSM/ccbysa link. The isokron logo is colourful and the OSM/ccbysa link is monochrome. The isokron logo is on the map and the OSM/ccbysa link is below the map. My questions to legal-talk are: 1) Is this a situation where the prominence clause should be applied? And if not, when should the prominence clause apply? 2) What guidance should we offer to good members of the OSM community who wish to have a large beautiful logo on their map? Best regards, Richard [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F Oh. That link is terrible. Here is a shorter link. http://ow.ly/1v4Z2 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM content on locked platforms
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, a recent discussion on talk-de has unearthed an interesting question with regards to iPhone/Appstore and other locked platforms. [... ] Now, CC-BY-SA requires that whoever buys this application should have the full right to make derivative works (of the data), pass it (the data) on, etc.etc., and indeed it also says: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. If I understand things correctly, then the whole iPhone/Appstore/Apple operating system combo is just that - a technological measure that controls access and use of the work, because you cannot retrieve the work from the iPhone without jailbreaking it, and you cannot install it on another iPhone without jailbreaking that. I believe that you are correct. As you describe it cc-by-sa is not allowed on iStuff due to technological measures. One might argue that making the work available outside the iPrison then becomes consistent again and satisfies cc-by-sa. Mike Collinson's suggestion of a button in the application might satisfy everybody. (a) what would the ODbL say in a similar case? ODbL v1, by comparison, explicitly requires this out-of-band distribution of the unlocked work to be compliant with OdBL 4.7b (b) is it in our interest - in the interest of open data - to allow such distribution of our data through closed platforms? I believe it is in our interest to not prohibit any field of endeavor. In this case we shouldn't deny a developer their platform of choice. No special additional restrictions for iPrison. But no special reduction in obligations either. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM license change - ODbL - questions
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, F. Heinen f.heinen...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Richard, Thanks a lot for the response. I read (quickly) most of the documentation already. Seems quite a lot of work and study has been put into this. Good work OSMF! But even when it seems this is all needed and much better AFAIS now what will be done if the community will vote against this change and/or only a bit (60% for example) will be kept of the data? Dear Frank, I trust that if the percentage is too low, the OSMF will find another approach. I'm guessing, because it is impossible to know, that we'll promote 90%-95% of the data to ODbL. Even data that can not be promoted to ODbL will still be available in the last cc-by-sa planet. So it won't be lost and thrown away, just left behind. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM license change - ODbL - questions
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:09 PM, F. Heinen f.heinen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Let me first introduce myself, I am Frank aka Frenzel. I am a community member of OSM.nl since Aug. 2009, so relatively new but also quite active. I hope I mail this to the right mailing list. Hi Frank, I'm Richard, an OSM participant from Canada. I've been following the license discussions for a couple of years now but seldom participate. I think license details are important, and that the Foundation will get it right. I speak for myself only. In the Dutch mailing list already a few times a discussion started on the license change that OSMF likes to do (or is needed). But the community doesn't seem to be convinced, are missing answers and no consensus is found. So herewith some questions from my side which I hope can clarify the questions from me (and I guess from more of the community members). Note: I want to keep this on a human understandable and general level! Okay. I can do that. I'm a human. 1 - What (human understandable) reasons are there to change the OSM license? cc-by-sa is written for single creative works, like a song, sculpture, or movie script. cc-by-sa is not designed to apply to data or databases. Creative commons told us this after we started using cc-by-sa. There was nothing else suitable when OSM started. 2 - What information can be found so the community can read more about it? This is great. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ 3 - Are feasibility studies done on the following levels: 3.1 - Data/DB level - For example how to do with changes of the data where the original contributor doesn't accept the new license? See below. 3.2 - Contributor level - What the changes are that reasonable amount of contributors will accept the change? Depends who asks the questions and with what goal in mind. 3.3 - Community emotional level - For example how the community will deal with data that will not be move where people put in hard work, TLC and free time (and maybe even money). I believe that the community is taking every reasonable precaution in the license change. Also that the revisions and re-starts in the license change process have lead to a better, clearer license. I think that the change, when it happens will be much smoother that we feared. I realize that we will lose some data, and that is a shame. I think that the community will continue to grow and thrive. 4 - Is there any documentation based on what reasons we can convince companies that donated data to accept the changed license? For years, this possibility should have been made clear during discussions of the donation. For years. If we missed that opportunity to get ODbL pre-approved, the similarities to cc-by-sa are very helpful. An Italian lawyer described ODbL as cc-by-sa without the problems. (see page 2) http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/archive/3/3c/20091205200018!License_Proposal.pdf ODbL is an Attribution, ShareAlike license. ODbL is intended for data and databases. The OSM community helped lawyers, expert in international law and intellectual property law develop ODbL. Folks who thought cc-by-sa was the right way to proceed should jump enthusiastically to ODbL. 5 - Is there a roadmap of this license change? Sure. I haven't looked at it recently, and I'm sure we're a few days or weeks or something behind schedule. Everybody involved is a volunteer. I don't mind. 6 - Is there a plan on how to implement this change? Of course. And there have been many reviews of the plans from many individuals in the community. This has been ongoing for more than three years. 7 - What are the minimum goals that this license change will be accepted? For example on data level: how much of the OSM data must be put on ODbL to accept it? So what if only 10% of the data is accepted? As I understand it, the need for change has been accepted and the license upgrade will happen. Exact percentages are impossible to predict in advance. But this chart is interesting. 50% of way data is contributed by 31 user accounts. So if only those 31 users say yes, we keep 50% of the data. I believe that way more than 31 users will accept the license. And I believe that the vast majority of our data will successfully be relicensed as ODbL. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats#Contribution_percentage_by_user I hope you guys can shine some light on my questions. Hope that helps. Again, just my perspective. Also, I think it is important to thank the community for making OSM as much fun as it is. We're all volunteers, participating in OSM because we enjoy it. When some volunteer to do even more, like by participating the OSMF and doing things that we can't do as individuals, I think that is a real benefit to the rest of us. For example. I could have asked everybody to send me money so I could buy a new database server for OSM. Perhaps some folks would have sent the money. But
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] TeleAtlas data in OSM
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Stefano Salvador stefano.salva...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I tried to send this to the foundation but I got no response, so I'm trying here. During an edit session I noticed a number of errors near my living area [1]. Comparing the area with GMaps [2] reveals too many similiraties. I have compared the OSM data with a dump of TeleAtlas DB which I use for work and I discovered that ways and nodes are exactly the same so I'm pretty sure that this data was uploaded from a similar dump. The changesets are all of the user moleilbevi [3]. Other users have mapped the area before this disaster so is not easy for me deleting only the ways copied. Hi Stefano. I've forwarded this to the data working group for their information. I suppose it is also possible that this data comes from one unencumbered source to both OSM and TeleAtlas, so this might not be a problem. Have you contacted this user to find out? Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Toronto data license: Incompatible with OSM
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Andy Robinson ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: But maybe if you chat to them they might consider releasing to OSM under a modified license to get around this? Of course. In progress. ;-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] reciprocal data agreements
Dear legal-talk, I wonder if either cc-by-sa, or ODbL anticipate a reciprocal data agreement between OSM and another project with a different license? Imagine a data provider using perhaps cc-by, or a BSD style permissive license contributes their data to OSM. Imagine then that they would like to monitor changes in OSM to data that originated from their source. Imagine then that they would like to incorporate those changes, with or without further vetting, back into their dataset under their license. My understanding is this return of the data to the source would not be permitted, as is, with either license. I suggest that we do want to permit this sort of a reciprocal data agreement. Am I incorrect in my understanding of the licenses and would this be permitted already? Could a community guideline address this and permit it in the ODbL when and if adopted? Thoughts? Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal aid - tentative data source from an Australian regional council
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jeff Pricejeff.pr...@rocketmail.com wrote: Hello, I approached my local council some months ago enquiring about access to their road data and recently gained a in principle agreement for shapefile content via cdrom. While I explained the creative commons licensing they also came back with a license agreement of their own. Is there someone on the list who could help me to ensure things are done correctly? Would you like to to work directly with one person (all going well should be a few emails and a phone call) or work with the entire group via this list? Dear Jeff, Congratulations on finding a possible data donor and taking the conversation this far. You may want to take this conversation to the Imports mailing list[1] where the goal is matching folks up to locate, acquire, convert and import data sets from various sources. There will also be an Imports list conference call this week for those interested.[2] I would be pleased to help you with the current discussion in any way that I can. I took part in a similar discussion that lead to a data donation from the Canadian government. Best regards, Richard. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM usage in commercial apps.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Algirdas Mockusalgirdas.moc...@gmail.com wrote: Hy everybody, Our company is planning to use Marble widget in commercial product. As you know Marble is licensed under LGPL v2 license, that permits its usage in commercial closed source apps. I have a question ... is it possible to use open street maps data together with Marble in such application not breaking any legal rights (meeting Creative Commons license)? Thanks for your answears. Dear Algirdas, The ccbysa license allows commercial use. Your obligation is to credit OpenStreetMap to satisfy the BY requirement. Please see the wiki for specific examples of proper credit. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F The Share Alike obligation is slightly more complex. As long as you are using _unchanged OSM data_ Share Alike places no additional obligation on you. Can you share any more details so that we can be more specific? Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 13:00 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: If someone really wants to jump through these hoops to get it done, let him do it. I think this will be a niche application and, if at all, only used very seldom. And if we later find that someone is really being a thorn in our side with that for one reason or another, *then* we think about fixing it. Is it practical, from the legal point of view, to aim ODbL version 1.0 at the community? The well-behaved get a license that tells them what is allowed. (Map t-shirts and cupcakes? Sure!) This way the good people in the community with commercial interests can proceed with some reassurance. The contributors can know that the license permits the use cases we want and can get to their new contributions. The badly-behaved get the current no reverse engineering clause and the derivative database share alike requirement with the existing potential holes, and we shore it up with a community norms document? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
