Re: [OSM-legal-talk] contributor terms

[Simon Poole]

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms upgrade ready

[Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer]

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

[SomeoneElse]

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 upgrade ready

[John Smith]

On 19 January 2011 02:10, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> On 18 January 2011 15:48, Mike Collinson  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 review

[Florian Lohoff]

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review

[Lars Aronsson]

On 08/27/2010 08:53 AM, Francis Davey wrote:

[2] All a lawyer can properly do is convert what the client (or
parties) want into a legal document. All too often clients ask lawyers
to draft contracts for them without realising that they have to decide
what the contract is going to say, before the lawyer can draft it.


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".
For a while we thought CC-BY-SA was that, but turns out it
builds on copyright and we can't trust copyright to apply
to the data in OSM. So if copyright is failing us, other available
tools (including database rights and contract law) must be
considered and neither OSMers nor lawyers have much
experience from applying these legal tools to maps. This
inexperience has two consequences: Directly, we're not sure
if ODbL will "function like GPL" for us in future legal battles.
Indirectly, since ODbL is new, unfamiliar and untested, we
will have a hard time to convince volunteers and authorities
to contribute their data.

When Wikipedia started in 2001, well before Creative Commons
was set up, they wanted "something as similar as possible
to GPL, but applied to an online encyclopedia". The suggestion
to use GFDL resonated perfectly well with the community,
but later turned out to be a mistake, since GFDL required
any reusers to list many of the participating authors, resulting
in some very peculiar examples, such as the German printed
one-volume encyclopedic dictionary (Das Wikipedia Lexikon
in einem Band) which spends dozens of its 1000 pages on
listing Wikipedia user names in a tiny, tiny font. This is not
what the community had intended. Since GFDL v.2 allowed
a transition to a version 3, its creator Richard Stallman was
convinced to make GFDL v.3 equivalent with CC-BY-SA, and
that is now what Wikipedia uses.

That Wikipedia's choice of GFDL turned out to be a mistake
was not all that important. In the beginning it did have the
more important resonating effect that got the whole project
started. Even if it wasn't entirely solid, it looked like a good
plan, and attracted many early volunteers from the free
software community. This is also what CC-BY-SA has brought
to OSM. But can ODbL sustain that effect, or just kill it?

This attraction of volunteers is an important aspect of being
"something similar to GPL".


--
  Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review

[Francis Davey]

On 26 August 2010 22:02, SomeoneElse  wrote:
>
> Thanks Mike.  Here's hoping m'learned friends can be prevailed upon to
> accept that something a little closer to standard English could still be
> used for the CTs!

Its not my call, but I have a preference for British English for a
contract whose applicable law that of England and Wales.

Speaking as a practising lawyer, there is _no_ reason to use archaic
or obscure English, nor to use overly complicated structures or
phrasing. Some technical language is useful or necessary, such as
"copyright" (which has a specific statutory meaning) or "licence"
(which is a useful concept that would be rather clumsy to avoid), but
that aside, it should be possible to write any contract in good
English.

Two remarks on any contract writing exercise:

[1] There _is_ a conflict between "clear and easy to understand in
plain English" and "short". Too many of my clients seem to think they
go together and "shorter is better". Anyone who has seen the results
of an obfuscated C contest will see that is not a general rule.
Lawyers can be expert at pithily saying something quite complicated,
but the result may be extremely obscure for the same reason as for the
C.

[2] All a lawyer can properly do is convert what the client (or
parties) want into a legal document. All too often clients ask lawyers
to draft contracts for them without realising that they have to decide
what the contract is going to say, before the lawyer can draft it. I
am sure OSMF gets this, but I think the point bears repeating. You
have to say what you want it to do, otherwise the lawyer has to guess
something to send back to you

All the best with this.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review

[SomeoneElse]

 On 26/08/2010 10:20, Mike Collinson wrote:

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
Thanks Mike.  Here's hoping m'learned friends can be prevailed upon to 
accept that something a little closer to standard English could still be 
used for the CTs!


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review

[David Groom]

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

[SomeoneElse]

 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years

[Anthony]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, 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) 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] Contributor Terms - The Early Years

[Richard Weait]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse
 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

[SomeoneElse]

 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 latest

[Frederik Ramm]

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms latest

[Oliver Kuehn (skobbler)]

"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 draft changes

[Anthony]

"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
from 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms draft changes

[Francis Davey]

On 14 February 2010 19:33, Mike Collinson  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

[Frederik Ramm]

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

[Matt Amos]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
> 2009/7/3 Ed Avis :
>>
>> 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.

i guess it would be difficult to do copyright assignment on some
imported data sets. e.g: AND might be happy to sublicense NL data to
us, but i doubt they'd be willing to assign us their copyright ;-)

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[Francis Davey]

2009/7/3 Ed Avis :
>
> 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

[Ed Avis]

Matt Amos  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 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[Ulf Möller]

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]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos  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.

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?

maybe it's just the word "explicit" that we need to remove?

> 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?

that's not how it works with databases. each item in the database is
contributed separately and has rights separate from those in the
database. the database is licensed ODbL, but the contents are licensed
as noted in the contributor terms.

there is no blank cheque. read section 3 - "OSMF agrees to use or
sub-license your contents **only** under the terms of one of the
following licenses: ODbL 1.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0, or another free and open
license chosen by a **vote** of the OSMF membership **and** approved
by a **vote** of active contributors."

this is even stronger than the proposed changes to the articles of
association. OSMF will be bound by more than 100,000 contracts with
contributors which prevent it from licensing data under anything other
than ODbL 1.0 or CC-BY-SA 2.0 **unless** there is a vote not only of
the OSMF membership (which you can join) but also of the global active
community (which you are presumably part of). seriously, i don't see
how we could possibly make this any less of a blank cheque without
preventing future license upgrades altogether.

> 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.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[Matt Amos]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Ramm 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

[graham]

If I were a complete newbie I'd get lost in the first sentence: "but I
just want to enter a street that's missing, I'm not a copyright holder
for that. Or am I? Better ask the 'rights holder'. Now who would that be?"

Result: either go away or do like most people - scroll to the bottom
without reading so you can find the button to click to get to the next page.

Something more like "You will not enter any data which you have copied
from elsewhere without permission" would be clearer, even if it's only
an explanatory comment.

Graham

Matt Amos wrote:
> just so that this isn't hidden in the dark depths of the privacy
> thread, i thought it's worth announcing the latest draft of the
> contributor terms. this is the document that contributors would agree
> to as the license is changed and on any new sign-up.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms
> 
> bear in mind that it still isn't a finished document - it's under
> discussion in LWG meetings and is being reviewed by OSMF's lawyer. we
> think it sets out, with the minimum of legalese, a fair contract with
> the balance rights and obligations that the community wants.
> 
> we look forward to hearing any feedback.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> matt
> 
> ___
> 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

[Frederik Ramm]

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

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

>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?

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.

>>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.

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.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[Frederik Ramm]

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

[Ed Avis]

Matt Amos  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 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[Frederik Ramm]

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

[Brendan Barrett]

> 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:

"You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright holder
or that you have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit
the content."

If they break that condition, would the protection disappear?

Regards,
Brendan Barrett

_
What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Matt Amos wrote:
> just so that this isn't hidden in the dark depths of the privacy
> thread, i thought it's worth announcing the latest draft of the
> contributor terms. this is the document that contributors would agree
> to as the license is changed and on any new sign-up.

Good but I dislike the long-ish part about the liability. I understand 
it is all for the benefit of the mapper but it does sound differently. 
It is as if you are about to give blood and they give you one page to 
sign that lists all the circumstances under which they guarantee not so 
sue you - kinda leaves you with the feeling "oh, I hadn't thought of 
that... how many other circumstances are not listed here under which 
they WILL sue me?"

I'll heap a ton of praise on you if you manage to express section 5 in 
40 words or less.

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?

Bye
Frederik

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