Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
2011/6/17 Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com: The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to comment on how the statement may or may not achieve that; I'm not qualified to interpret it. All I can do is make it clear that it was drafted to explicitly allow derived data to stay in the database. I've seen the background correspondence about it, and I know the lawyers involved were well aware of the CTs, the OdBL, the future licence terms, etc, when they drafted it. Thanks for that. Speaking as a lawyer for a moment - and trying to be helpful, though I detect some irritation at what I am saying - as a matter of strict reading, the first statement of Ben's in this thread quite clearly states that OSMF may continue to use nearmap data but may not licence it under ODbL. In particular the clarification paragraph contains the sentence: The OSMF are making a change to the contributor terms which makes them incompatible with the requirement, under our community licence, that derived works be distributed only under CC-BY-SA. We are not able to change our licence to allow distribution of derived works under unspecified future licences. Which is about as categorical as it can be. Some responses to my email explaining this haven't been happy with that conclusion and have complained about it, but the fact that information is unwelcome and unwanted doesn't make it untrue. Now, people don't always write what they mean. And some of the rest of what Ben says appears (confusingly) to contradict that plain statement at the end and the way in which the lawyer drafted paragraphs operate. As a matter of law (and here Australian law is similar enough to English law that I am confident it is right for there as here), provided Ben appears to have the authority to speak on nearmap's behalf, what he says in this email is quite enough to rely on. A court would read the entirety of the correspondence and conclude that, however confused his first statement, what he says later on makes it clear precisely what he is trying to do. If any other project wants to do this in the future having them say: we are happy for you to keep any data that has already been contributed to the map and for you to relicense it under any licence selected in accordance with your existing contributor terms would be entirely sufficient. So, thank you Ben for the additional clarification and thank you everyone else for bearing with my trying to nail this down. I know it appears annoying and pedantic to some, but if you care about legal issues at all that is how it has to be some times. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this wish. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Yes Steve - you're right. The For Clarity paragraph basically says that contributions from a mapper who hadn't accepted the CT and were derived from Nearmap prior to June 17th 2011 can stay in the data base and do not have to be deleted. They give no time limit or OSM-licence limitations on this allowence to keep the current derived data, therefore I believe that all mappers (who wish their contributions to remain in the OSM project) can now accept the CT without having to worry whether one or more of their contributions was derived from Nearmap. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 16 June 2011 14:48, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: That it was drafted, carefully, by a lawyer I do not doubt. But lawyers draft things on instruction to achieve particular goals. My understanding from Ben's comment is that one of the goals of nearmap is that derived works are distributed only under CC-BY-SA. The second paragraph does that job well as far as I can see and prevents OSM from relicensing nearmap data under ODbL. The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to comment on how the statement may or may not achieve that; I'm not qualified to interpret it. All I can do is make it clear that it was drafted to explicitly allow derived data to stay in the database. I've seen the background correspondence about it, and I know the lawyers involved were well aware of the CTs, the OdBL, the future licence terms, etc, when they drafted it. On 16 June 2011 17:02, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Ben, thanks for the offer, but worded as it is I still don't find that compatible with OSMF's terms and conditions. Well, a bunch of people here put real effort into finding a way to avoid large amounts of NearMap-derived data being deleted by addressing the licence incompatibility, but we are all busy with many tasks that have to be given a higher priority than this, so I doubt very much that there can be any more legal work done on our side to clarify this further. I'm sure that there could be a long and detailed discussion on whether the statement achieves that but I say again: that's exactly what it was intended to achive and it was written by our lawyers to do just that. :) Regards Ben ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
