Re: [OSM-legal-talk] contributor terms
Essentially it doesn't have any effect wrt your old contributions since they are not suddenly "un-redacted", so no need to panic. It would still be a good idea to reset the flag, BUT, legal-talk is definitely not the right place to get that done. Please simply contact the system admins. Simon Am 03.09.2016 um 19:46 schrieb Mike Dupont: > Sorry to bring this up again, but I accidentally accepted the > contributor terms on my h4ck3rm1k3 account > and I cannot do that because not all the data that I had there is > cleared for the new license. I stopped using that account a while back. > I would like to have the settings turned back. > I tried to login to osm help and reset my password for that,but I got > into the main osm page. > can you please help me? > thanks, > mike > > -- > James Michael DuPont > Kansas Linux Fest http://kansaslinuxfest.us > Free/Libre Open Source and Open Knowledge Association of Kansas > http://openkansas.us > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org > Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion > http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com > > > ___ > 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
[OSM-legal-talk] contributor terms
Sorry to bring this up again, but I accidentally accepted the contributor terms on my h4ck3rm1k3 account and I cannot do that because not all the data that I had there is cleared for the new license. I stopped using that account a while back. I would like to have the settings turned back. I tried to login to osm help and reset my password for that,but I got into the main osm page. can you please help me? thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Kansas Linux Fest http://kansaslinuxfest.us Free/Libre Open Source and Open Knowledge Association of Kansas http://openkansas.us Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms: errors in the Italian translation
There are some errors in the Italian translation of the contributor terms https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms License names contains typos: * ODbl sould be ODbL (the case) * DdCL should be DbCL (b instead of d) The phrase le quali saranno si intenderanno approvate con il voto should be le quali si intenderanno approvate con il voto (a verb is repeated). I also suggest to embed a link the the legal text of the licenses. I know Simone Cortesi - which made the translation - is off-line for a while. So someone else should fix it. I don't have write access to the pages, if I can help let me know how. -- Niccolo Rigacci Firenze - Italy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms upgrade ready
Hi, Kai described my concern with the currect CT wording very well. Is the LWG still working on a reply? I am asking because if the LWG is convinced that there is no problem, then we need to explain our concern is better words. Olaf OSMF can't force you to accept them, but if you don't, you loose your active contributor status and thus your right to vote. The free and open restriction probably still holds, but the vote does seem to be circumventable by the method suggested by Olaf, by including what you want to vote for in the new CT, then enforce those CT and finally vote, once only those are active contributors who have already agreed to the change through the new CT. Perhaps the vote can be extended to anyone who ever reached active contributor status and responds to a request to vote within 3 weeks assuming a reasonable effort has been undertaken to deliver the request to vote. Kai ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms upgrade ready
On 19 January 2011 02:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 January 2011 15:48, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: The links below show the wording we will formally release. I will confirm when it is done. We will then set up and announce mechanism whereby anyone who has accepted the 1.0 terms can upgrade, this will be entirely optional. The wording drops one suggested change - the addition of the phrase, and to the extent that you are able to do so or similar into clause (2) - we'd like to look at this one further as it has some potential side-effects as currently worded. With this new version, do you/others think it is OK for people who So far all I've seen is contradicting information coming from people pushing for this change, one will say yes, another will say no because you have to give OSM-F the ability to change the license in future and they can't do this unless the information is done so by a copyright holder. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms upgrade ready
On 18/01/2011 14:48, Mike Collinson wrote: The links below show the wording we will formally release. Thanks Mike. I'll look forward to a derivative of those appearing on https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms at some point in the future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:54:04AM +0200, Lars Aronsson wrote: This is true, but it's also true that what OSM wants is to have something as similar as possible to GPL, but applied to maps. I dont - Am i OSM? 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review
The License Working Group met Tuesday. Most, if not all, comment at the moment is on the Contributor Terms. Therefore we will devote next week's meeting (Aug 31) entirely to going though each issue already raised. We will then pass these on to legal counsel for review. When we get a response, we will then look whether they can best be dealt with by clarificatory statements or clarificatory changes to the Terms themselves. We are not at this point looking to making any major changes to the way the Contributor Terms, but of course cannot completely rule that out. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review
Mike thanks for the update. Regards David - Original Message - From: Mike Collinson To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:20 AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review The License Working Group met Tuesday. Most, if not all, comment at the moment is on the Contributor Terms. Therefore we will devote next week's meeting (Aug 31) entirely to going though each issue already raised. We will then pass these on to legal counsel for review. When we get a response, we will then look whether they can best be dealt with by clarificatory statements or clarificatory changes to the Terms themselves. We are not at this point looking to making any major changes to the way the Contributor Terms, but of course cannot completely rule that out. Mike License Working Group ___ 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] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On 23/08/2010 01:34, Richard Weait wrote: That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) Thanks Richard. What we could do with from the LWG (and I'm sure that they will look at doing it) is a here are the new CTs and the new licence, and here's how we think that it affects you if you've previously used data from XYZ in OSM and/or intend to do so in the future for each large XYZ (Yahoo, OS Opendata, etc.). I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN Be grateful for small mercies I suppose... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
Liz, You asked about the early intent of the Contributor Terms before they were re-written by legal counsel. As promised: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the or got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the or got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. Perhaps any lawyers on this list would comment on this matter in general? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. What jurisdiction(s) did that lawyer practice in? Also, did you get a chance to ask him if the second sentence (*) applies If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents? In any case, as a contract of adhesion, the courts are likely to interpret the contract in favor of the non-OSMF litigant. (*) You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms (was : decision removing data:
At 01:14 13/08/2010, Liz wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote: At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal review from OSMF's lawyers... Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with what is now the summary [1] but they were re-written professionally ... and came back, well, much longer. We then worked compressing it to the minimum and had each small change explicitly reviewed. A number of changes were also proposed by kind folks on this list and were subjected to the same review. Mike [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary the output you get from a lawyer is dependent on the input so you ask a question and the lawyer answers that question. we can't decide anything about the lawyer's contributions unless we know what the original questions were. Drafts are available at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes . Look for Licensing Working Group, Contributor Terms (working document, not a final version) However as you are only seeing the last revision per physical document, the earliest appears to be draft 11 ... so does not directly answer the question you are asking. I will dig out the earliest draft I can find in history diffs and publish as a separate document. Note also that we originally intended a very short version that pointed to (drafts of) Database Contents License (DbCL) . You can see the later v1.0 version at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ and that there is a high correspondence of phraseology. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms (was : decision removing data:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote: At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal review from OSMF's lawyers... Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with what is now the summary [1] but they were re-written professionally ... and came back, well, much longer. We then worked compressing it to the minimum and had each small change explicitly reviewed. A number of changes were also proposed by kind folks on this list and were subjected to the same review. Mike [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary the output you get from a lawyer is dependent on the input so you ask a question and the lawyer answers that question. we can't decide anything about the lawyer's contributions unless we know what the original questions were. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms latest
Apart from that, this is the version we would like to finalise on and which has had legal review. Please shout if you see any holes. Hi Michael, I wonder if there should not be a clarification that any content provided should (a) NOT contain material that is false, intentionally misleading, or defamatory; contains material that is unlawful, including illegal hate speech or pornography; exploits or otherwise harms minors; or violates or advocates the violation of any law or regulation and (b) be in line with some generic principles of content that is welcome? I have not seen any other terms that consider these points. Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Contributor-Terms-latest-tp4621828p4621966.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] Contributor Terms latest
Hi, Mike Collinson wrote: - defining active contributor as a natural person. This serves the purpose of no bots. OPEN QUESTION: We are not sure about this one as this it excludes corporations or other legally organised entities. If they have multiple accounts for individual staff, it has the reverse effect. Perhaps not a good idea? Comments welcome. At least in Germany, only natural persons can ever have copyright on anything (it's not called copyright here, it's called Urheberrecht, rights of the creator; of course the creator can always give someone else an exclusive license but the root of the right remains with the natural person). So that would make sense. On the other hand, database rights can, and usually are, accrued by corporations and not individuals... 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms draft changes
We are wanting to introduce dual-licensing for *new* registrants as soon as we have the new Contributor Terms nailed down. That means a final review of the current wording by legal counsel and then I'll ask for any last(?) comments from this list. We've made some changes in order to try and address concerns raised late last year from OSM and OSMF members. Here is a version with recent changes highlighted in yellow: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhrhttp://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr Here is a summary of what we have done and why: 1) License violations - can someone sue on the basis of misuse of their data? Our understanding from Counsel is: Yes. OSMF can on the basis of collective/database rights. An individual contributor can if it concerns data that they added. Board suggested that we deal with this via Community Guidelines ... for example, asking contributors to be courteous; setting up how and when the OSMF would expected to act; name and shame where possible; etc. We have therefore made no addition to the Contributor Terms, it is already long. 2) Third-party ODbL to ODbL conflict with the need to be able to potentially change the license over the coming years. I, for one, feel very strongly that we must have a mechanism to allow the OSM of the future to have the best free and open license they need, as long as it remains with the free and open boundary, however defined. I recognise that this causes some incompatibility with importing other ODbL data. Our solution is : a) Reduce the risk that some folks perceive of license change by increasing the amount of active contributors needed to change the license from 50% to 2/3; b) Not make any major change to the Contributor Terms now but handle ODbL-based third-party data imports on a case by case basis; c) reconsider in one year; d) Restrict the grant of license in the second paragraph to just the OSMF, (i.e. not the end users). Re-introduce the Database Contents License (DbCL) http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ to govern the relation between OSMF and end users. We had wanted to incorporate this in the Contributor Terms for simplicity, but it actually complicates things. You will see that a lot of the wording is the same. 3) and a tiny plain language change to make it more obvious that an active contributor is a person not a bot by using the word who. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms draft changes
Hi, Mike Collinson wrote: can someone sue on the basis of misuse of their data? Our understanding from Counsel is: Yes. OSMF can on the basis of collective/database rights. An individual contributor can if it concerns data that they added. What would be the legal basis for that? Say I add a whole town to OSM. You then use that data with blatant disregard for the license. If I want to sue you, then you must have violated a right of mine, or broken a contract with me. Given that we are in the process of throwing away a license that is rooted in copyright because we say that copyright doesn't apply - which of my rights would you have violated, or which contract broken? 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] Contributor Terms draft changes
On 14 February 2010 19:33, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We are wanting to introduce dual-licensing for *new* registrants as soon as we have the new Contributor Terms nailed down. That means a final review of the current wording by legal counsel and then I'll ask for any last(?) comments from this list. Good stuff. I've not give it a thorough reading, but thought you might be interested in a couple of comments (I realise you have counsel to do this, but since I am also a copyright lawyer, my half-pennyworth might be of some interest). [1] as part of a database only under the terms of one of the following licenses... has two parsings: only may modify database or the following phrase. I.e. you might mean (a) that when you sub-license it will only be as part of a database and only under one of the licences given, or (b) that when you sub-license it as part of a database (but not when you otherwise sub-license it) that sub-licensing will only be on one of the following terms I hate ambiguity in a contract or licence and usage (a) is the less usual of the two ways in which only is used as a modifier in English. [snip] 1) License violations - can someone sue on the basis of misuse of their data? Our understanding from Counsel is: Yes. OSMF can on the basis of collective/database rights. An individual contributor can if it concerns data that they added. Board suggested that we deal with this via Community Guidelines ... for example, asking contributors to be courteous; setting up how and when the OSMF would expected to act; name and shame where possible; etc. We have therefore made no addition to the Contributor Terms, it is already long. OK. That's clear. At the moment you probably cannot take advantage of section 101A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 which allows a licensee to sue in certain circumstances. Are you quite clear that the advantage of short contributor terms outweighs the flexibility of being able to sue for violation of copyright (rather than database right)? The sort of change I envisage would be to insert after These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees the phrase and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these terms. Something like that. [snip] 3) and a tiny plain language change to make it more obvious that an active contributor is a person not a bot by using the word who. Why not put it beyond doubt by replacing contributor with natural person, so that you have: a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who Since you never defined contributor having the term there doesn't add very much. Lastly, I am sure this has come up on the list before, so forgive me as a newcomer not knowing the thinking on it, but if this is a contract/licence governed by English law, then wouldn't it be sensible to use the spelling used in the courts of the jurisdiction, i.e. British English? I have in mind all those uses of license for licence. I'm happy to go through and make the changes if it would help 8-). Good work on this. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms draft changes
You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements). If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr#_msocom_1from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below. Is that right? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms (was Re: Copyright Assignment)
Two related things on Contributor Terms: [80n on share-alike] By comparison, ODbL+Contributor Terms has properties that break this principle. A derived work can not be fed back into OSM unless the author agrees to the contributor terms. Matt set up a poll at http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 to see whether people prefer this behaviour or not. You should vote on this to help OSMF make an informed decision. (FWIW I greatly prefer removing this behaviour: I have enough confidence in the Open Data Commons project that ODbL will continue to be a suitable licence, through subsequent upgrades, that I don't feel the need to easily relicense is paramount.) [Francis Davey] What the Contributor Terms do is (i) give OSMF the usual royalty- free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence with a right to sub-licence; and (ii) grants the same licence to anyone that receives Your Contribution. [...] (ii) is a bit odd - its effect appears to be to nullify any copyright in Your Contribution since anyone who copies it is surely someone who receives it. It would appear to prevent anyone suing for breach of copyright. We discussed this on IRC just before Christmas and it was suggested that simply removing (ii) would fix most of the issues. I would be very happy to see this happen. I think Matt was going to suggest this to LWG. So from here it looks to me as if LWG is taking note of people's suggestions just as it should be. But perhaps someone from LWG could confirm how/if the Contributor Terms might be revised in the light of these two suggestions. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Copyright-Assignment-tp26927109p27026599.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] Contributor Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future), but it is better to call a spade a spade. Technically (at least in English law), no. Its a sublicence rather than an assignmentt. They are distinct. Many jurisdictions impose formality conditions on assignments of copyright that they do not on licences. In a licensing situation the licensor retains their ownership of the copyright, contrast the assignment situation. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Brendan Barrett wrote: What happens if someone, with malicious intent, deletes lots of data or uploads things that cause trouble (e.g. upload Teleatlas data, then tip off Teleatlas to make trouble). Do we reserve the right to sue them for damages, and if so, would this agreement be the place to hint at that? Would they not be in breach of condition 1: Yes; let me change the example and ask whether we reserve the right to sue someone who uploads 100.000km of random motorways across Europe every day. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the content. (Licence X being whatever licence OSM is using... so if another organization releases data under CC-BY-SA or under ODbL or whatever, clearly it must be permitted to add that to OSM. If not, something is a bit wrong.) Sections 2 and 3 seem a bit too much of a blank cheque to the OSM Foundation. If we truly believe in share-alike, then is it not enough for contributors to agree to license their work under Licence X, and then the OSMF will be able to redistribute it? If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the content. (Licence X being whatever licence OSM is using... so if another organization releases data under CC-BY-SA or under ODbL or whatever, clearly it must be permitted to add that to OSM. If not, something is a bit wrong.) ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings attached for the symbolic price of $1. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Hi, Ed Avis wrote: ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? My reading until now was that because ODbL gives the original licensor super cow powers (namely of determining which other licenses are deemed compatible), it must be avoided to pass on these super cow powers to evil people like me (Fred sets up free world database, licenses it ODbL with himself at the license root, imports full OSM database without asking anyone, then decrees under section 4.4.e that for his project, ODbL is compatible with PD, and this makes the OSM data PD.) But please let someone from the license working group say something to this before I confuse everyone. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. Sh, don't say that too loud, it has taken us PD advocates a lot of work to sneak that bit in! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Ed Avis wrote: ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? My reading until now was that because ODbL gives the original licensor super cow powers (namely of determining which other licenses are deemed compatible), everyone has the super cow powers, but they're cascaded. e.g: if OSMF is the original licensor and i want to license some derived database under a different license i have to ask OSMF. if you license it from me and want to distribute your derived version, then you have to ask me *and* OSMF. however, i can delegate my super cow powers to a 3rd party (e.g: OSMF) to make my life easier. it must be avoided to pass on these super cow powers to evil people like me (Fred sets up free world database, licenses it ODbL with himself at the license root, imports full OSM database without asking anyone, then decrees under section 4.4.e that for his project, ODbL is compatible with PD, and this makes the OSM data PD.) indeed. this is why the upstream compatibility decision is necessary. much as i'd *love* to have a PD-OSM (not the one with specially named zip files on an FTP server, but just OSM in the public domain), there were many in the community who were against PD/BSD style licenses. hence, why ODbL is an SA/GPL style license. But please let someone from the license working group say something to this before I confuse everyone. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. Sh, don't say that too loud, it has taken us PD advocates a lot of work to sneak that bit in! no, that's not what it says at all. it says OSMF can grant any license they want as long as it is free and open **and approved by a vote of active contributors**. if you really want PD, or you really don't want PD: join OSMF, keep your email up-to-date and continue mapping! then your voice will be heard (twice). cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Ed Avis schrieb: If it is not possible to take one ODbL-licensed work, and combine it with another ODbL-licensed work to make a third ODbL-licensed work, then either the ODbL is even worse than it first appears, or the proposed OSM implementation of it is flawed. The ODbL certainly allows that. However if individual submissions to OSM were licensed under ODbL then OSM would be locked in to that license. I think ODbL is a good license for OSM, but I'm not sure it will remain the best possible license forever, so I think being able to change the license is important. Yes but it also requires more trust from the mappers. If OSMF has copyright assigned, then Google can subvert the OSMF and have the OSMF board decide to grant Google a full commercial license with no strings attached for the symbolic price of $1. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. The community vote makes sure the OSMF can't do that: or another free and open license chosen by a vote of the OSM Foundation membership and approved by a vote of active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: if it's in the public domain then you already have permission from the copyright holder. also, having permission from the rights holder to distribute under License X is the same thing as having permission from the rights holder to submit the content, no? Well, not quite; if it's truly in the public domain then there is no copyright holder, so you do not have permission, nor do you need it. And permission to to distribute under licence X does not imply permission to add the data to OSM where it will be redistributed under 'free and open' licence Y subject to a vote some time in the future, so we must decide whether to allow this case. (IMHO, if OSM chooses the ODbL but ends up in the position of rejecting third party contributions which are themselves licensed under the ODbL, something is wrong with the licensing policy.) If you want to be able to do future relicensing exercises then why not simply ask for copyright assignment? It is more honest that way I think. because we've heard it time and time again that people don't want to do copyright assignment. My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future), but it is better to call a spade a spade. Still, if there is a strong view that copyright assignment is unacceptable but something that amounts to basically the same thing expressed with more words is fine, then I suppose we can go with that. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
