Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-19 10:38 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :

> As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely
> new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not
> "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to
> attribute on the website. Further it could be argued that in reality such
> permission creates a completely new licence, in any case I think "fixable"
> might be the wrong term, since every licence is "fixable" by replacing it
> with something else or explicit permission.
>


yes, I agree that "fixable" might not be the right term, and that adding
something to a license makes it a new license. I had thought about this
"fixable" and "not fixable" wording but decided to put it as a kind of
generalized placeholder and wait what the discussion would come up with.
You are right that any license is fixable if replaces by a different one,
but if someone has decided to require only attribution it is much more
likely they'd be willing to agree on a specific kind of (indirect)
attribution rather than someone refusing commercial use would agree on
permitting it.
If the cc-by 4.0 is not compatible even by agreeing on a particular kind of
attribution, please go ahead and fix the page. I had naively (and
admittedly without looking at the details) asumed that an attribution only
license would be OK if attribution requirements are fulfilled.



>  The other problem with ODbL and CC-BY licences is that they do not allow
> sub-licensing, not to mention that the ODbL is silent on the form of rights
> (ownership) in derivative databases (in conventional copyright the creator
> of a derivative could/would have separate rights to the specific
> derivative, it is not clear how this is supposed to work in the potential
> absence of copyright protection in the case of database elements that
> themselves have no protection).
>
> And another point: the whole thing needs a gigantic disclaimer at the top
> pointing out that the determinations are only for unmodified versions of
> the licences and that (that they are unmodified) needs to be determined by
> looking at the actual licence text, see the OS version of the OGL and the
> current upset with the Australian GNAF data (licensed on terms of a
> modified CC-BY 4.0) for examples of such issues.
>


its a wiki page, please go ahead and fix it. If there are uncertainties and
doubt, make some annotations.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Simon Poole]

As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a
completely new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and
potentially is not "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of
getting permission to attribute on the website. Further it could be
argued that in reality such permission creates a completely new licence,
in any case I think "fixable" might be the wrong term, since every
licence is "fixable" by replacing it with something else or explicit
permission.

 The other problem with ODbL and CC-BY licences is that they do not
allow sub-licensing, not to mention that the ODbL is silent on the form
of rights (ownership) in derivative databases (in conventional copyright
the creator of a derivative could/would have separate rights to the
specific derivative, it is not clear how this is supposed to work in the
potential absence of copyright protection in the case of database
elements that themselves have no protection).  

And another point: the whole thing needs a gigantic disclaimer at the
top pointing out that the determinations are only for unmodified
versions of the licences and that (that they are unmodified) needs to be
determined by looking at the actual licence text, see the OS version of
the OGL and the current upset with the Australian GNAF data (licensed on
terms of a modified CC-BY 4.0) for examples of such issues.

Simon


Am 18.01.2016 um 11:53 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to
> review and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview
> about the compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
>
> Feel free to modify and improve this first draft. I have not yet
> linked it from any other wiki pages but plan to do so from the imports
> section of the wiki after some community review.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> For reference, this is the OSMF-talk thread:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2016-January/003665.html
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 18 January 2016 at 10:53, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
> and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
> compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

This is great to see, and will hopefully become a very useful resource.

Some comments / suggestions:

* In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
person/body who is able to give such permission.

* For the CC-By notes, I think those giving the permission also need
to be aware that they are (or would need to be) also authorising
downstream use of their data, without necessarily getting any direct
attribution from those downstream uses. I'd suggest adding "including
to cover downstream use in works derived from OSM" to the end of the
note.

* It's not clear from the page whether or not the lack of green in the
"contributor terms" column precludes the use of ODbL data or not.
Presumably not, but more consideration should be taken before using
such data, and with documenting them and attributing it in OSM. If
this is correct, then something to this effect should be added in an
explanatory paragraph.

* It would be good to add the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) and
Non-Commercial Government Licence (NCGL) to the list. The first should
be the same as the ODbL (as it explicitly states the ODbLs terms are
sufficient to fulfil the obligations under the licence) while the
second is incompatible due to the NC terms.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

Feel free to modify and improve this first draft. I have not yet linked it
from any other wiki pages but plan to do so from the imports section of the
wiki after some community review.

Cheers,
Martin

For reference, this is the OSMF-talk thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2016-January/003665.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-18 16:21 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>:

> Some comments / suggestions:
>
>
thank you for your comments.



> * In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
> rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
> person/body who is able to give such permission.
>


done



>
> * For the CC-By notes, I think those giving the permission also need
> to be aware that they are (or would need to be) also authorising
> downstream use of their data, without necessarily getting any direct
> attribution from those downstream uses. I'd suggest adding "including
> to cover downstream use in works derived from OSM" to the end of the
> note.
>


I have integrated this now, had first tried to put it in the middle but
then decided to add it to the end as you suggested (but without the "to
cover"), feel free to improve it yourself


* It's not clear from the page whether or not the lack of green in the
> "contributor terms" column precludes the use of ODbL data or not.
> Presumably not, but more consideration should be taken before using
> such data, and with documenting them and attributing it in OSM. If
> this is correct, then something to this effect should be added in an
> explanatory paragraph.
>


yes, I agree this could be made more verbose. I agree with your
interpretation that it doesn't seem to prevent people from importing this
data now, but it clearly puts more obligations on us that will make future
license changes harder to perform. Feel free to add some explanatory lines
yourself


>
> * It would be good to add the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) and
> Non-Commercial Government Licence (NCGL) to the list. The first should
> be the same as the ODbL (as it explicitly states the ODbLs terms are
> sufficient to fulfil the obligations under the licence) while the
> second is incompatible due to the NC terms.
>


can you (or someone else) add these? I am not familiar with them and could
only replicate what you have written above.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Richard Fairhurst]

dieterdreist wrote:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to 
> review and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview 
> about the compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:

This is really good. Thanks, Martin.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-new-wiki-page-ODbL-compatibility-of-common-licenses-tp5865065p5865100.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk