Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
On 24/08/2010 11:35, Ed Avis wrote: ... under the proposed ODbL or whether it would technically be in breach of the contract-law provisions But presumably I as Joe Mapper wouldn't be restricted in going back to the OS with a bunch of errors that I've found after comparing what I've mapped with what the OS throught was there (on the my data is mine and I can licence it however else I like as well principle)? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes: That's what I think the plan is. However it is made very difficult by the fact that those data providers most likely chose their SA licenses in order to be able to use any improvements made on top of their data, which we are planning to very soon make impossible for them. So we now approach them and say Hello, can you please grant all these.. perpetual.. irrevocable.. etc. rights to something called OSMF, and by the way you won't be able to use OSM data any more because our new license is not compatible with yours. It may be hard to give something back from OSM to many of the data providers. Public domain sources like USGS cannot take the updates because they are funded for producing public domain data (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-July/020016.html). Ordance Survey can't take updates because it is also selling licenses for commercial use. Thus both the European and American mapping agencies have one thing in common, they can't accept updates from OSM community but they need to build their own community feed back systems. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
At 10:46 AM 14/08/2010, Rob Myers wrote: On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote: If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary. The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find out which dataset was used to produce it, and from a given dataset you can find out who produced it. BY-SA already requires less attribution than the GNU FDL, and this was an issue for some people when Wikipedia was relicenced - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Attribution - Rob. And section 4 of the Contributor Terms is designed for first-stage attribution of data donors irrespective of license used. Thanks Rob for the article. I was struck by the moderate importance attached in the survey result to the wiki(pedia) history page. It has bothered me that though attribution is a good abstract idea , we lacked a similar mechanism in a database of highly factual non-immutable data to make it sticky. It strikes me that the work by Matt now gives a practical analogue of that in the history planet dump that has now been published. Speculatively, it is perhaps something we should commit to continue publishing as part of our attribution commitments. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
- Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: Why are we changing the licence? Well [1] states among other things that [CC-BY-SA] is therefore very difficult to interpret, and we have indeed seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found. If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our data were asked to take a cautious approach. And that seems very reasonable stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not categorically say how CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was needed. Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to our data, it seems reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be blindly importing CC-BY-SA data into OSM. I presume we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. Or am I missing something? David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT. CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM. 80n Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that. As I titled the post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of the CT's ODbL. I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT ODbl is where I asked if we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. As such it then wouldn't matter if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT ODbL as we would not be relying on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison. David 80n Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and surely the CC-BY-SA permissions flow though into the OSM data. In which case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still exist. Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about it on the implementation plan [2] David [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: - Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Why are we changing the licence? Well [1] states among other things that [CC-BY-SA] is therefore very difficult to interpret, and we have indeed seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found. If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our data were asked to take a cautious approach. And that seems very reasonable stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not categorically say how CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was needed. Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to our data, it seems reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be blindly importing CC-BY-SA data into OSM. I presume we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. Or am I missing something? David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT. CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM. 80n Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that. As I titled the post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of the CT's ODbL. David, I know that you realise that. I just wanted to clarify this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may not have the detailed background knowledge or stumble on this thread out of context. I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT ODbl is where I asked if we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. As such it then wouldn't matter if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT ODbL as we would not be relying on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison. David 80n Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and surely the CC-BY-SA permissions flow though into the OSM data. In which case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still exist. Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about it on the implementation plan [2] David [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.netrevi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT permission to do so. David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the Contributor Terms. If you have added content that is licensed under CC-BY-SA you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms. I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is compatible with OBdL and CT. It is not. I have moved this from [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle for releasing government data. I am inclined to agree with 80n, though in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too potentially broad in their virality. I present this for the purposes of discussion and do not see my conclusions as immutable. I focus on Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a consideration. I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last of NearMap of Australia (http://www.nearmap.com). They allow use of their PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most cordial and helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from their own perspective. I hope they will share some of the conclusions they reach, both for the perspective and the authoritative opinion. -- To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this: Write a word processor --X-- Write a book with the software. Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book. But if the software is improved to write the book and software is published, then software improvements must be available Share Alike. ODbL is slightly stronger: Create map data --X-- Make a map Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible data to make the map under certain conditions. But if the data is improved and the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be available Share Alike. But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus can potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original publisher feels they want to exert(?). Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community: Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA - Create map data with some imagery tracing - Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map; ... ODbL breaks the chain at the second -, either because the extract is not substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA does not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?). Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you believe strongly in pandemic virality, then it is a good thing. If you believe that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect ourselves. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote: Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you believe strongly in pandemic virality, then it is a good thing. If you believe that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect ourselves. alternate conclusion, If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary. If you believe that the data should be completely freely available then neither ODBL nor CC-by-SA is appropriate, and a CC0 licence should be considered. If your major concern is that improvements to the data should be fed back into the common pool of data, then CC-by or CC-by-SA would be suitable (and maybe others) Please leave out very emotive language like dangerous and unproven assertions like most of us without defining us. I realise that it was headed personal conclusion. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT permission to do so. David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the Contributor Terms. If you have added content that is licensed under CC-BY-SA you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms. I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is compatible with OBdL and CT. It is not. I have moved this from [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle for releasing government data. I am inclined to agree with 80n, though in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too potentially broad in their virality. I present this for the purposes of discussion and do not see my conclusions as immutable. I focus on Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a consideration. In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give OSMF rights that you don't possess. CC-BY-SA does not grant you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF. Its as simple as that isn't it? 80n I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last of NearMap of Australia ( http://www.nearmap.com). They allow use of their PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most cordial and helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from their own perspective. I hope they will share some of the conclusions they reach, both for the perspective and the authoritative opinion. -- To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this: Write a word processor --X-- Write a book with the software. Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book. But if the software is improved to write the book and software is published, then software improvements must be available Share Alike. ODbL is slightly stronger: Create map data --X-- Make a map Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible data to make the map under certain conditions. But if the data is improved and the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be available Share Alike. But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus can potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original publisher feels they want to exert(?). Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community: Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA - Create map data with some imagery tracing - Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map; ... ODbL breaks the chain at the second -, either because the extract is not substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA does not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?). Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you believe strongly in pandemic virality, then it is a good thing. If you believe that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect ourselves. Mike ___ 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] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
Michael Collinson wrote: I have moved this from [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle for releasing government data. Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much easier problem. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-CC-BY-SA-is-compatible-with-ODbL-tp5422512p5422694.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] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
On 14 August 2010 18:46, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much easier problem. To the best of my knowledge you are correct. Perhaps he was thinking of some other country that has had cc-by-sa data imported? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
On 14 August 2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data but only for works? That was Liz's point, and they usually have more lawyers than we might ever have access to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
On 14 August 2010 10:14, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 August 2010 10:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data but only for works? There may be institutional reasons for it (eg we always use this licence). It seems to me that use of these licenses by governments started about the time osm decided they were no good and continues to accelerate. I also find it very odd that this project with extremely limited legal resources feels like it knows better than the large legal teams that governments and state bodies have. If governments release large amounts of data under these licenses and they turn out to not offer the correct protection then wouldn't they just change the law so they do work? Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
Francis Davey wrote: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much easier problem. But still incompatible with the contributor terms in the sense that a CC-BY licensee does not have sufficient rights to agree to them. No-one could lawfully take CC-BY data and contribute it via the contributor terms of course. Indeed, but one which should be fixable by minor modifications to the contributor terms (which some of us are suggesting to OSMF that they do) and potentially offering a derogation from the terms for certain data sources. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-CC-BY-SA-is-compatible-with-ODbL-tp5422512p5422915.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] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give OSMF rights that you don't possess. CC-BY-SA does not grant you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF. Its as simple as that isn't it? With the current CTs, yes I think it is that simple. And CC-By is incompatible for the same reasons. However, lets suppose (hope?) that the CT's are changed so they're no longer a problem. The question still remains as to whether CC-By or CC-By-SA are compatible with ODbL+DbCL. From my understanding of things, there are two potential problems: First, DbCL requires the owner of the submitted content to give up and copyright on individual data items. (It's that worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to do any act that is restricted by copyright phrase again.) That's certainly not a right that's granted by the CC licenses, though depending on the jurisdiction and type of data you may be able to argue that there was never any copyright on the individual data items anyway. Some data providers may strongly contest that though. Secondly, the provisions for produced works in ODbL mean that they can be released with no direct attribution to the original source (only the ODbL database they're produced from needs to be credited), nor any specific restrictions / freedoms on attribution or licensing for further downstream reuse. I believe that this ability is incompatible with the requirements of the CC-By and CC-SA licenses, and hence under ODbL 4.4(d) you would not be permitted to add CC-By or CC-SA licensed data to an ODbL database that's going to be publicly used. (This second point has been acknowledged informally as a potential issue by Ordnance Survey when I enquired about the possibility of using OS OpenData under ODbL. They've yet to get back to me with a formal response though.) Unlike the CTs, I think there's a reasonable chance that data providers currently using CC-By or CC-By-SA could be persuaded to explicitly allow under ODbL+DbCL. But my current conclusion is that it would not be permitted to import CC-By, CC-SA or CC-By-SA data into an ODbL+DbCL database. Given the use of CC licensed data in OSM at the moment, and the possibility of amended CTs (at least for some large data providers) I think these points need urgent clarification by OSMF's lawyers -- and it would be good to ask the ODbL+DbCL authors at ODC for their views too. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: However, lets suppose (hope?) that the CT's are changed so they're no longer a problem. The question still remains as to whether CC-By or CC-By-SA are compatible with ODbL+DbCL. If the work is copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't compatible with ODbL. CC-BY-SA isn't compatible with anything but CC-BY-SA (including later and jurisdiction-specific versions) and a license which CC has declared to be compatible. At this time, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility (http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
