Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer. Yes, the True Answer as John and I know. Let's be true and tlk of honestness. John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. Jane Smith ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the discussion over the LINZ import. Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL relicensing. That is the argument of the Rich. That they contribut money when we the people contribut our flesh and bones to the map! Sureley someone who contribtues more than another is doing from their goodwill and all contributions are equal in reality? We need to rise up and take the reins of Power. As 80n has foretold. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ 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 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be brought down? Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for longer before others wise up as to your intents... ___ 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 6:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be brought down? Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for longer before others wise up as to your intents... John! You are right! How do I disrupt the community covertly like you and Anthony and Liz and 80n? I am trying to learn! Am I being too Open? Teach me! I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! ___ 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 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! Did you have a good flight from Germany? ___ 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 7:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! Did you have a good flight from Germany? Yar I ist eating mine fritter John. can you explainen the distruptnik of the community again? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be content with the license... Thank you both for being so concerned about my personal license preference. Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I think. - As for the contributor terms, some parts of them are necessary and some are not necessary but prudent, among them the much-discussed clause 3; 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. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
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 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... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith 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. I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or unreachable by then, well, tough luck. - The après moi le déluge stance if you will. In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is best for the project in 10 years? I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years. Neither do I. But in exchange for every puny node you add today you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future. I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project) would be stupid, to say the least. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 18:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM As I've stated in the past, which you conveniently keep ignoring, over looking or misunderstanding... You are putting end users of the data ahead of contributors, imho that is selfish, you think end users are more important that the contributors, is your view being influenced because your company is such an end user? ___ 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 8:58 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: 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. I think the general view is that the project is currently licensed under CC-BY-SA but that if you don't like it then you are free to fork. Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect. It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for a broken license, eh? The great thing about the current license is that there's no coercion. If you don't like it or the licensed doesn't work for your use case then you can just go ahead and start your own fork. That's what those who are in favour of ODbL should have done two years ago. Instead we now have this ugly mess which is set to string out for a very long time with continual disruption and damage to the project. 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. Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. We have a responsibility to do the right thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ 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 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, 80n wrote: Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect. But they are saying that it is unsuitable. It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for a broken license, eh? Rely on people's good intentions is not a general solution. The great thing about the current license is that there's no coercion. There's no coercion in the new licence or in the changeover. You are free to decline and to continue to pretend that BY-SA is a suitable licence for data. If you don't like it or the licensed doesn't work for your use case then you can just go ahead and start your own fork. That's what those who are in favour of ODbL should have done two years ago. You can't fork BY-SA to ODbL + DbCL, so this wouldn't be possible. If only the CT's had allowed it... Instead we now have this ugly mess which is set to string out for a very long time with continual disruption and damage to the project. Some people think it's being strung out, others think it's being rushed. Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. We have a responsibility to do the right Frederik's argument is entirely correct. We should empower them to do the right thing. thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. And we are doing the right thing now. - Rob. ___ 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 1 September 2010 18:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith? Can't figure out any better insults? The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM At least be honest about it, the CTs as they read now, basically state OSM is likely to become PD in future, I don't prescribe to the moral, and I would never have signed up to OSM if it had been anything less at the time. do not trust current OSM contributors. You treat them with what appears to be contempt. You won't even provide a bare minimum of 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. context in your changeset comments for other OSM contributors. Wow, that's the best you can do? How about mentioning the 10's of 1000's of change sets attributed to me to help improve the map, how about the 100s if not 1000s of dollars I've spent on fuel + GPS equipment trying to improve the map, how about the time and effort I spent submitting patches to improve JOSM, how about the time and effort I spent making apps for phones to help improve the map... ___ 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 1 September 2010 18:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: 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 how compatible will the CTs be with OS data exactly? ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way of ensuring this than BY-SA The devil you know is better than the devil you don't At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible the ODBL is a really bad deal and neither should be accepted as being honest, moral or for the benefit of the project. That's a serious allegation and one not borne out by the facts. If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention very much. ___ 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 10:12 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: 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. And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Cheers, Andy [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Firefishy#User:JohnSmith [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnSmitholdid=512994 [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/052736.html ___ 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 1 September 2010 19:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL Is this like all the laywers that think the ODBL is great too? about 12,500 contributors make up about 99% of the data, how many of those agree with your point of view, or is this a case of the view of a few hundred being extrapolated to the entire project? But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. Because dirty tricks have been employed all along, from abusing statistics to trying to discredit people that disagree. Although today they've gone off the charts... You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import You tried to discredit me by showing things in a very one sided manner, by making it seem as if the contributions I made weren't useful because I didn't bother to supply changeset comments, and you are still trying to belittle my contributions when we both know I'm in the top 100 contributors... data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. It's a tad difficult to defend ones self against such vague claims, maybe I should make the same claims of you without pointing out exactly what you did, can you prove you didn't? ___ 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, 1 Sep 2010 05:12:21 -0400, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: 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 Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I don't recall a poll or a survey where I've been asked if I want a license change and which license I want. I do know that people can currently accept the new ODbL license, but they are not asked to decline it if they want that, so you will not get the negative vote from that. I must agree with John's feel here: I've not been asked if I want it, I'm only asked to accept it or not. Regards, Maarten ___ 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 10:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might distract people changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly Which minor edit(s) were mine exactly? never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Is that worst dirt you guys could dig up on me? No affairs with hookers, no affiliations with seedy underworld figures, no bribes to cops even, I'll have to remember to try harder in future... Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's really unbecoming. Thanks, Andy ___ 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 1 September 2010 19:38, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's really unbecoming. I'm mortified about the license change debate, I'm mortified that any grievances with the license change debate go un-addressed, I'm mortified that people feel that have to resort to muck racking to try and win a debate. ___ 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 1 September 2010 19:59, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: My comments have nothing to do with the debate or any issues you Then perhaps you should have used another thread with a more appropriate subject line to avoid confusion? My comments are intended to address your disruptive behaviour on the wiki, in the database, and elsewhere. But you seem to relish the disruption and are continually Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions. But instead of apologising, or even acknowledging that you seemingly can't behave cooperatively within the OSM community, you carry on with your destructive behaviour. I find that quite unfortunate. So in other words you can't out right fault me as badly as you were hoping, and this is the best you could come up with ? ___ 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, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote: The OSMF are OpenStreetMap contributors. However OpenStreetMap contributors != OSMF because OSMF is a subset of contributors (although being a contributor is not a prerequisite, so this may not be completely true). ___ 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 3:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I think When did you come to that conclusion, and why? Weren't you opposed to the license at first? ___ 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 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or unreachable by then, well, tough luck. - The après moi le déluge stance if you will. In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is best for the project in 10 years? I think you're right that it's a matter of different perceptions. What you're describing is the way copyright law works. If you feel that copyright is a moral right, then of course you'll have no problem with copyright holders being able to dictate what happens to their works, even 10 years in the future. The fact that contributors are giving any license at all is something to be grateful for. I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years. Neither do I. Well sure it's selfish. Would you prefer us to be self-destructive? Who are we supposed to be doing this for if not for ourselves? The fact that you don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years is a big part of the point. You yourself said that most people wouldn't want 2/3rds of the members of a fork relicensing OSM. If you're no longer an active member of OSM, what does it matter if it's 2/3rds of a fork or 2/3rds of OSM itself? If 10 years from now OSM is something that I don't want to support, I *want* them to be limited in what they can do with my contributions. But in exchange for every puny node you add today you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future. This is outright dishonest. The future OSM is under no obligation to do anyone's bidding. They simply need to follow the license *if* they want to continue to use my contributions. Now, I'm not going to defend the ODbL. I think it's a bad license, which imposes far too onerous conditions on reuse. On the other hand, most people seem to disagree with this. If you think the conditions of the ODbL are acceptable, then what's so bad about making OSMF eat its own dog food? I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project) would be stupid, to say the least. And I think it's stupid to give up your rights today just because someone claims (without argument) that not giving up those rights might possibly endanger some project in the future (a project which, as you say, you don't even know if you're going to be a part of). If OSMF worries that the current version of ODbL might be fundamentally flawed to the point where the project would be strangled 10 years from now, then they should 1) talk to the ODC about that concern, and get a commitment from them that they will fix such flaws in a future license version; and 2) add or any later version to the contributor terms (yes, that's in the license, but adding it to the CT would cover the possibility that there's a flaw in the or later version part of the ODbL). But personally, I think that's silly. The project is so much more than just the data. You've talked yourself about how easy it is to replace the data of people who don't agree to the switch. Now imagine how much easier it'll be with the technology we have 10 years from now. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
John, there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find something inappropriate. For example this: John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: The devil is in the details. CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print... is just unsuitable for a debate (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100% rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time. As for debate, your point has been made and understood: * Your No. 1 priority for OSM is to keep the data you and some of your fellow Australians have mapped and imported. * In your particular case, while most of that data is compatible, or could be made compatible, with ODbL, things are more difficult with potential future license changes (CT clause 3) Until here, you are probably not alone and your cause is understandable. While others in the same situation might take a more progressive stance and try to make things work, your conclusion has been: * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good enough in Australia). Even this is, while probably not the best option for the project overall, something you're not alone with. You've said it, your point has been made, no need to repeat it 20 times a week. But here things start to go wrong. You're screaming, you're kicking, you're accusing everyone of sinister motives, secret plans, evilness of all kind. You're crying foul, you're writing acid comments and getting personal on almost any mailing list you have access to. You're the no. 1 poster on legal-talk by a large margin, and your messages haven't had anything new in them for the last four weeks. For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing. My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it. So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be doing things wrong. I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition. You're trying to make a win or lose situation out of something that wasn't one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to win. This is a trait commonly found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful. In addition, but this has already been said by others, your behaviour in our online community is bullish and obnoxious, and if made aware of your mistakes you're just trying to make this into a new battle in which to stand ground before your friends rather than admitting it and making amends. JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your arrogance and general disruptive behaviour. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your endless scorn, I now have to read 80 m and Jane Smith as well, and I think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see some of it flung back. *Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates your claim of dirty tricks on the part of the people you don't agree with. I have no problem with debating the issues, Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it. Unike you, I have debated all aspects of re-licensing with various people for the last three years, and I'm willing to continue doing so, provided it occurs in a civilised manner - one of which, sadly, you do not seem to be capable. For you, this is not a debate but an ego contest. I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You, JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your audience. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 2 September 2010 05:14, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find something inappropriate. I've made several comments that you do like wise, you keep claiming this change is needed to make OSM more free, but that's dishonest because it will only make *END USERS* more free, but you continue you leave those words from your statement. is just unsuitable for a debate (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100% rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time. Oh that's even funnier when you later claim I take things out of context, it seems everything you acuse me of you end up just as guilty as committing the same crime. As for debate, your point has been made and understood: So why do you continually take me out of context and claim I'm against the license if you have understood my point? * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good enough in Australia). See there you go again... For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing. I can't seem to find your links... So it's a mystery to me as well... Also you continuously seem to avoid Anthony's question about why you changed your stance on the ODBL... My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean the current solution is a good one, in fact I doubt I'd get a valid answer to that either since you and others have invested so much time and effort you wouldn't admit your own mistakes. So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be doing things wrong. For someone that claims to want to debate license issues you turned this into a personal attack pretty quickly. I don't want to blame anyone, I just don't like the current solution and you seem unwilling to compromise at all. I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition. You're trying to make a win or lose situation out of something that wasn't one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to win. This is a trait commonly found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful. I see Dr Frederik, and what is your hourly psychotherapy rate exactly? You seem to need some of your own medicine at this point in time. JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your arrogance and general disruptive behaviour. You have a hide, you claim I'm the arrogant one, when you have very very loudly proclaimed to know what's best for the project, without even asking most current contributors. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your endless scorn, I now have to read 80 m and Jane Smith as well, and I think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see some of it flung back. So 2 wrongs make a right now? But of course you don't like it when you get asked inconvenient questions and instead of addressing those you go into a personal rant. Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it. You took things I said in your email out of context several times, but that seems to be something you do often already. I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You, JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your audience. So what about Anthony's question(s)? You don't seem to want to debate anything, you have a point of view and that's the only one that matters. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Anthony wrote: [Jane Smith] copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence 'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least two other people here. She is posting HTML messages and can't quote properly: same applies to at least one other person here. She is trolling: and yes, at least one other person here has publicly vowed (elsewhere) that they will continue to be deliberately disruptive on the OSM lists. I'd suggest the best course of action is, as ever, Please Do Not Feed The Trolls. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475845p5481346.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Please Do Not Feed The Trolls. The person who has chosen the pseudonym Jane Smith has a right to have their point heard. I would not consider this person to be a troll, whether or not I am the person recalled as intending to be publicly disruptive. The troll has no specific interest in the discussion nor its solution. Just because Jane Smith chooses a pseudonym and phrases reminiscent of the extreme left of the 1960s and 70s does not invalidate the point. This person feels that some of their freedoms are at risk. Could we consider this point? ___ 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 Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is what we workers should control. No copyright was the true reason for Germanys rapid industrial expansion: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html A small quote: German authors during this period wrote ceaselessly. Around 14,000 new publications appeared in a single year in 1843. Measured against population numbers at the time, this reaches nearly today's level. And although novels were published as well, the majority of the works were academic papers. The situation in England was very different. For the period of the Enlightenment and bourgeois emancipation, we see deplorable progress in Great Britain, Höffner states. Equally Developed Industrial Nation Indeed, only 1,000 new works appeared annually in England at that time -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 30.08.2010 13:43, schrieb John Smith: 2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map the regional and rural areas that every keeps claiming will be so easy to get re-mapped... I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court cases that demonstrate that it isn't. What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has copyright. Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians. Besides, what I think he meant is, that collecting facts (like geodata) doesn't usually fall under the protection of copyright. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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 Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map the regional and rural areas that every keeps claiming will be so easy to get re-mapped... I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the discussion over the LINZ import. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the discussion over the LINZ import. Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL relicensing. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL relicensing. At this stage contributors aren't being asked what they want, we're being told what we should do. ___ 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 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open: - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual contributors?) - with ODbL, you'd have to ask OSMF, which will be the owner of the data. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Both CC-BY-SA and ODbL allow forking without needing to ask for permission. The ability to fork an ODbL dataset was a specific question the LWG asked legal council. Legal council answered in the affirmative that anyone can fork an ODbL licensed dataset. Relicensing a CC-BY-SA, ODbL or GPL etc license project would require asking each of the contributors for permission (or replacing their contribution). Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 31.08.2010 12:56, schrieb Liz: On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the discussion over the LINZ import. Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL relicensing. No, I am not saying that, and I can't see where you got that impression. I am looking back at evidence for an import being discussed on this list, advice offered, and it was thought that the new licence would make it easier. Now that the evidence is that the new licence will not make it easier and the contributor terms will make it impossible, why are some people complaining about imports getting in the road of the new licence? To clarify: I complain about imports generally, because in my experience they harm the community, not just because of the relicensing. I'm very much in favor of manual mapping, because that creates some sort of connectedness of the mapper with their map. The only solution I see with (now?) incompatible imports is to try and renegotiate with the donors, preferably to have the data released into the Public Domain, like *the* import we did was from the start (TIGER). Besides, as others have already pointed out, we remove data that doesn't fit our license all the time, where should we draw the line? how much mapper effort may be wasted in order to have somewhat of a legally sound status for the future of the project as a whole? Is it even valid to risk the future status of the work of hundreds of thousands of contributors for the work of some 1000 users, which are, after all, less than half a percent of our userbase? It's a hard question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. All I can say is what I would like to see, and that would be a free and open map data collection of the world. Preferably PD, but SA-ish is also acceptable (again: for me). -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony: What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has copyright. Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians. Besides, what I think he meant is, that collecting facts (like geodata) doesn't usually fall under the protection of copyright. Collecting facts never falls under the protection of copyright. The expression of facts usually does, though. ___ 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 Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence 'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least two other people here. She is posting HTML messages and can't quote properly: same applies to at least one other person here. She is trolling: and yes, at least one other person here has publicly vowed (elsewhere) that they will continue to be deliberately disruptive on the OSM lists. So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too. ___ 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 08/31/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote: So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too. I think it's more that we should ignore (people who we think are) obvious trolls. I'm not sure that Marxist views on copyright are necessarily trolling, however capitalized, but they are a bit off topic for a list about bourgeois law. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, 80n wrote: An ODbL fork would not have same rights to the data as OSMF would have. It would be a somewhat asymmetrical fork. You cannot fork the substance of the contributor terms. True, but I believe this discussion was about whether you can fork the future ODbL OSM without having to ask OSMF, and the answer is yes. If the community chooses to exercise clause 3 of the contributor terms and change the license from ODbL to something else, that something else must be free and open. It is probably open to interpretation whether free and open implies freely forkable but I have yet to see a license that is free and open but does not allow forks, What you can *not* do is fork the project, let yourself and two friends be the community in the new fork and then decide to relicense to public domain (but two thirds of the community have agreed, we're only using clause 3 of the contributor terms!). I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer. ___ 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 Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Someone in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD and to what he likes. I think this is less realistic when many companies¹ either operate internationally or do business with other companies who operate internationally. If there is no single law, then we can just extract the changes again back in usa and put them back in no? Then it is a two way street. You could, but then you would make the situation confusing in jurisdictions that do respect rights on the data. Copyright and database right does not simply go away with the act of removing the work from the database and putting it back again. ¹I’m assuming business to make writing about it a little more succinct, but the “Someone” in Frederik’s post could really be anyone. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote: You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all, to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map data. You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court cases that demonstrate that it isn't. You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its own authors. That's before you start considering all the various government data released under copyright licenses. Are you saying all their lawyers have no clue about copyright laws, or that the governments themselves The law in one of those various (sic) jurisdictions is still in flux. And if government IP lawyers are the same as most corporate IP lawyers they wont have a very good grasp either of the limits of copyright or of alternative licencing. Francis's post supports this. OSM is a global project. What is correct for one government in their own jurisdiction may not be correct for another. aren't able to change laws to make map data copyrightable? If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be a good idea? - Rob. ___ 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 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its own authors. I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to ensure the data is kept is to stick with the current license... ___ 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 Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote: If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be a good idea? This is a new concept on the list, that OSM starts negotiations with governments over licensing of map data (assuming not owned by government). Is this a real concern of anyone else? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 30.08.2010 12:16, schrieb John Smith: On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its own authors. I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to ensure the data is kept is to stick with the current license... That's not correct. The Data will be kept in the last CC-By-SA Planet which is still part of the OSM project. You are right of course that the data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map the regional and rural areas that every keeps claiming will be so easy to get re-mapped... ___ 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 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point importing, the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey english copyright law. no? No, people are bound by the copyright law where they are or use the data. For example if someone wants to sue me for violating copyright, they'll have to do it under Australian law. The only thing where England comes into play is that the Contributor Terms specify that they fall under English law. The ODbL deliberately doesn't contain a choice-of-law clause. If there is no single law, then we can just extract the changes again back in usa and put them back in no? Then it is a two way street. No. For example there are books which are out of copyright in Australia (due to length of time since publication) but still on copyright in the US. If I use that now public domain work to create something new in Australia, I can't give it to people or sell it in the US without the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. It's fine if I only distribute it places where the book's was out of copyright, but not if it goes to places where it's still in copyright. ___ 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 Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst of both worlds, PD and share-alike. And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike, and EULA hell. ___ 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 Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote: You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all, to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map data. You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court cases that demonstrate that it isn't. What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has copyright. Yes, there are some court cases that say that there isn't copyright in phone books. But, correct me if I'm wrong, there are none that say there isn't copyright in electronic maps. ___ 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 Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote: You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all, to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map data. You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court cases that demonstrate that it isn't. What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has copyright. Yes, there are some court cases that say that there isn't copyright in phone books. But, correct me if I'm wrong, there are none that say there isn't copyright in electronic maps. copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is what we workers should control. ___ 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 Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to in turn claim any sort of copyright on their own work, not to mention all the bad press they would get from it. There is one legitimate fear, though. Some company in an EU state can extract the non-copyrightable parts of OSM (*) and add it to their database which is protected under the sui generis database right, thereby subverting the principle of sharealike. As far as I can tell, this is still possible under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported. It's almost certainly possible under CC-BY-SA 2.0 Unported. If the license change fixed that, and only that, without fixing a dozen other non-problems, I'd be in favor of it. Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced Works and Contributor Terms and Contract Law. (*) Some will argue this is all of OSM, some will argue this is part of OSM, but I think pretty much everyone agrees that some of it is non-copyrightable. ___ 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 Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
I second that. Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just causing problems. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ 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 Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced Works and Contributor Terms and Contract Law. hear hear, finally a good idea! ___ 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 Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:55 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I second that. Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just causing problems. I use fake account yes, like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. Fake fake fake. We have to protect our names to protect our wives and children and followers in legal battles. I will use real name if yous do. Troll? I just express opinions with integrity honesty. Just like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. We know the truth and we will work on OSM-fork to prove the connections. Silencing will be cencorsing. You cant censor the Truth about the license that we all know. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
