Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16 June 2011 21:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote: Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the terms seen to be required by the OS (currently attribution, if I've understood correctly). So after a few years we might have data in our database that was given to someone with the explicit restriction that it may only ever be distributed under OdbL. Sufficient for the person to contribute the data to OSM under the current CT. A future license change would then need a crystal ball to single out that data set (the contributor might not even be available for communication any longer) and determine that it has to be removed. More importantly, the current license is CC-BY-SA not ODbL. Does that mean someone who has agreed to the Contributor Terms is allowed to upload CC-BY-SA data which can't be re-licensed to ODbL? If so, how is the re-licensing problem only an issue for the future? Wouldn't it be an issue for changing from CC-BY-SA to ODbL, since we know which people have agreed to the CTs but not if their data can be re-licensed? As far as I can tell, the 1.2.4 CTs don't give OSMF any more permission to license data under ODbL than it gives them to license it under any other free and open licence as ODbL is not mentioned in any other place than in the list that includes the phrase other free and open licence. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst lt;rich...@systemed.netgt; wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in November 2010 and subsequently adopted. 1.2.x say: If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). Frederik Ramm wrote: On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote: Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current license and thus clause 2 only applies to the rights held by the contributor and not to all data contributed by the contributor, it might be a good time to think about the practical implications of this. As it currently stands, I am kind of with Frederik, that this basically effectively rules out any future relicensing, as it is impossible to know which rights (and restrictions) exist in the data at the moment. Nevertheless, I think it is a reasonably good compromise between the position of making it possible to use data other than PD data and still having the flexibility to relicense if there really is a necessity in future. So the question is what can we do to make this compromise practically feasible? Frederik Ramm wrote: This situation could be made a little less of a problem by requesting that anyone who contributes data that is not available for arbitrary relicensing under the CT (i.e. any free and open license etc.etc.) should flag such data in a well-defined way. Then, in a future relicensing process we could assume that any data not flagged can be relicensed at will, and only data that is flagged needs to be more closely investigated. I think this will be key. For all data, it needs to be clear a) who holds any rights in the data and b) what exact restrictions apply to the data. For all data originally collected by an osm contributor this is clearly stated in clause 2. But there currently is no way to flag data as having additional restrictions applied (because it is a third party import with an attached license) The best we currently have is the wiki import catalogue[2], but a) not all imports are registered there and b) a lot of entries are useless with respect to the exact licensing terms of the data and what agreements exist. The most logical place perhaps to record such info is the OSM account. All data that is contributed to OSM for which not all rights stated in section 2 of the contributor terms are given to OSMF, needs to be contributed under a special osm account to which the exact licensing requirements are attached and contact details of the original rights holder. It is to some degree already the recommended practice, but it is in no way enforced. For future relicensing to remain feasible, this would however need to be enforced. For existing accounts, that have previously mixed data, it might need a more fine grained possibility e.g. per changeset, to parcel out the rights held in the data again. Frederik Ramm wrote: It is too late to upgrade the CT with such a requirement, but we could still set up a community norm to that effect. I don't think it is too late to upgrade the CT, to clarify this and make it explicit that you need to use a special osm account with a link to the license if you cannot grant all rights mentioned in clause 2 and can only comply with clause 1. These are local changes (unlike any changes to e.g. the voting requirements), so there shouldn't be a problem if different accounts use different versions of the CT, like it is already the case with version 1.0 and 1.2.4. Kai [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6555428.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] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 7 July 2011 04:03, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current license and thus clause 2 only applies to the rights held by the contributor and not to all data contributed by the contributor, it might be a good time to think about the practical implications of this. It's my understanding that the OS data needs to be attributed directly or indirectly, CC-by-SA offers this, but the ODBL doesn't, so if you mean current license as in CC-by-SA then sure. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
2011/6/16 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net: As a slightly supplementary question of what to do with data from those users who have not agreed to the CT's can I make the following suggestion. Given that we obviously want to move forward with a clean database untainted by any data which might be incompatible with future licences, AND Given that the LWG have been unable to establish that OS Opendata is compatible with the CT's , at least that is what I assume is meant by In the UK, we have the ambivalent nature of the license governing OS StreetView usage [1] Can I just make a plea for people not to talk about data (of any kind) being compatible with the CT's. The CT's are a contract between a contributor and OSMF. It may be a breach of contract for one contributor to contribute data under the CT's when it would not be a breach of contract for another to do so. Talking about compatibility in this way is at best unhelpful and at worst simply meaningless. At present it is a breach of the CT's to contribute most datasets that have not been personally collected by the individual contributor since the grant in 2 is wider than most open licenses permit. The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence) and the way in which OSMF uses it. In this respect the OS Opendata licence seems fairly good. There are some minor points of pedantry (I don't know if OSMF complies properly with the PECD for instance) and the OS Opendata licence fails to expressly allow sublicensing, but that appears implied from the rest of the terms. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence) and the way in which OSMF uses it. In this respect the OS Opendata licence seems fairly good. There are some minor points of pedantry (I don't know if OSMF complies properly with the PECD for instance) and the OS Opendata licence fails to expressly allow sublicensing, but that appears implied from the rest of the terms. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your conclusion as I don't think deletions alone is the right thing to be considering. A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. Given the amount of discussion that took place when the CTs were being developed, one has to assume that this requirement is quite deliberate (whether you agree with it or not), and the flexibility for re-licensing in the future is something that OSMF really wants. In this respect it is important (to OSMF at least) that we arrive at an OSM database that only contains data that can be re-licensed in this way. So even if OSMF is legally ok to continue distributing OS OpenData under ODbL, it wouldn't be in line with the above philosophy to leave OS OpenData-derived content in the database if we can't guarantee that it's 'safe' for future re-licensing. (Though maybe OSMF will change their mind on this point...) Therefore, the right question to ask at the moment is whether the original license of the source material is compatible with distribution of a derived work under an arbitrary and unspecified free and open license. If we're not asking this question, then it rather defeats the whole point of this requirement in the CTs. We might as well just rip up the CTs, only ask mappers to ensure their data is compatible with the currently proposed licenses, and postpone the problems with re-licensing to the point where we actually want to change the license again. Those accepting the CTs without the appropriate rights to allow re-licensing under any free and open license, may not be creating any legal problems for themselves or OSM in the short term. But they are presumably open to a breach of contract suit being brought by OSMF, and (more importantly) are giving the community and OSMF the misleading impression that their contributions are 'safe' for re-licensing in the future. If OSMF want us just to consider current licensing, then they need to change the CTs. They should not be asking mappers to sign something that is false because they failed to realise the consequences of their drafting. In the case of OS OpenData, OSMF and/or LWG need to decide whether or not they believe OS OpenData can be used under the terms of the CTs. If not, then they need to work out what people who have made use of the data should do with regard to signing the CTs, and what they are going to do with the OS OpenData-derived content currently in OSM. The way I see it there are two options: we either retain the re-licensing flexibility demanded by OSMF and remove all the OS OpenData from OSM, or we amend the CTs to allow OS OpenData to be kept, and accept a restriction on the possibilities for future re-licensing. (The other possibility of getting a private agreement between OSMF and OS seems to be dead in the water -- and I don't see why it would be in OS's interests to even consider something like that anyway.) To return to the original question. There should probably be two maps of content to be deleted. One simply with everything but CT-accepts (which would presumably be safe for distribution under ODbL), and one where we also flag any data we believe doesn't allow future licensing under any free and open license (which would indeed include OS OpenData as far as I can tell). The community / OSMF can then decide which system it wants to go with. (However, these views wouldn't be perfect, since there are be people, such as myself, who haven't signed the CTs only because of their use of OS OpenData. Hence the data losses if future re-licensing were to be abandoned would be less than indicated.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
Robert Whittaker wrote: A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in November 2010 and subsequently adopted. 1.2.x say: If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to check existing data and delete it if so. The minutes of LWG at the time confirm that this is the intention. (I would agree, however, that it is perhaps not as clearly worded as it could be.) Therefore if ODbL is compatible with OGL/OS, which I believe it is, then OS-derived contributions can be relicensed under ODbL+CT. Only if OSM moves to (say) a non-attribution licence do they have to be removed. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6482241.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] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
(continuing from previous message, d'oh) In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to check existing data and delete it if so. See also CT 1.2.x 1b which explicitly envisages this possibility: if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it), with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may delete that data cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6482245.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] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
Hi, On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to check existing data and delete it if so. Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16/06/11 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to check existing data and delete it if so. Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? I agree with what Robert said [1]: No, Clause 2 of the CTs requires you to grant OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents... subject only to some limitations on how OSMF may license the OSM database to others. Those limitations do not include any obligation for OSMF to ensure future licences have an attribution clause, and *that* is the problem I'm trying to highlight TimSC [1]http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011458.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16 June 2011 11:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the terms seen to be required by the OS (currently attribution, if I've understood correctly). It's an unfortunate limitation, certainly, but not quite the same as condemning us to ODbL or CC forever. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
Hi, On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote: Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the terms seen to be required by the OS (currently attribution, if I've understood correctly). Almost ;) replace terms seen to be required by the OS with sum of terms seen to be required by anyone whose data we are basing our contributions on. And while it is not certain that this sum of terms is equal to ODbL, it might be; we don't really have a way to know since we do not force or even expect our users to *tell* us what terms their contributions come under, except that they are somehow compatible with our current licensing. So after a few years we might have data in our database that was given to someone with the explicit restriction that it may only ever be distributed under OdbL. Sufficient for the person to contribute the data to OSM under the current CT. A future license change would then need a crystal ball to single out that data set (the contributor might not even be available for communication any longer) and determine that it has to be removed. This situation could be made a little less of a problem by requesting that anyone who contributes data that is not available for arbitrary relicensing under the CT (i.e. any free and open license etc.etc.) should flag such data in a well-defined way. Then, in a future relicensing process we could assume that any data not flagged can be relicensed at will, and only data that is flagged needs to be more closely investigated. It is too late to upgrade the CT with such a requirement, but we could still set up a community norm to that effect. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in November 2010 and subsequently adopted. 1.2.x say: If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). I'm sorry, but I believe that you're mistaken here. Your interpretation of what you've quoted from clause 1(a) is correct, but there are additional requirements elsewhere in the CTs which go beyond this. In particular Clause 2 requires an extensive rights grant to OSMF, which would, in particular, give them the right (without any further checking of the source's requirements) to re-license your contributions under any free and open license. If you do not have the right to give this right to OSMF for all the contents you have contributed, then you are not able comply with the CTs, and therefore should not sign them. Nothing in clause 2 says that weaker clause 1 must over-ride it (note that clause 2 specifically mentions that it is Subject to Section 3 and 4 below but contains no mention of section 1. So by default you have to comply with both clauses 1 and 2 separately.) If OSMF / LWG intended to only require contributed data complied with the current license, then I believe they have made a mistake in the wording of clause 2. However I don't think they made a mistake, as there was an amendment to clause 2 in a previous draft of the CTs, which would have allowed contents based on third-party sources to be submitted without violating clause 2, but this was reverted in a later draft. Maybe LWG would care to comment here on what they intended, and what they believe the effect of the current CTs actually is. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
- Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey (continuing from previous message, d'oh) In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to check existing data and delete it if so. See also CT 1.2.x 1b which explicitly envisages this possibility: if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it), with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may delete that data As I've pointed out before, the word may leaves open the possibility that OSM might delete the data, and the possibility that they might not delete the data. may is not the same as will. However your argument above completely fails to refer to Clause 2 of the CT's Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright And that is why I, and I others, can not reconcile the OS Opendata licence as being compatible with the CT's. If Clause 1b said Please note that OSMF does not have to include .. then we will delete that data, and Clause said Subject to Section 1 above, and Section 3 and 4 below, then it might be possible to argue that data issued under the OS Opendata licence is compatible with the CT's. In particular could you explain how the requirements at the top of the OS OpenData licence [1] The same attribution statements must be contained in any-sublicenses of the information that you grant, together with a requirement that any future sub-licences do the same, is fulfilled by the CT's David [1] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
As a slightly supplementary question of what to do with data from those users who have not agreed to the CT's can I make the following suggestion. Given that we obviously want to move forward with a clean database untainted by any data which might be incompatible with future licences, AND Given that the LWG have been unable to establish that OS Opendata is compatible with the CT's , at least that is what I assume is meant by In the UK, we have the ambivalent nature of the license governing OS StreetView usage [1] That any data tagged source = OS_Opendata, (or any other meaningful such tag) be treated as un-relicensable for the purposes of demonstrating how much data has not been relicenced under the CT's . Regards David [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_118d7c65vgb ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
