Re: [OSM-legal-talk] share-alike on generalized data?

[Rob Myers]

On 06/02/16 11:32 AM, Tobias Wendorff wrote:
> 
> Sure, I understand that. But I thought the main concept behind share-alike
> is to make data better by foreign "investitions".

In general the idea of share-alike is to make sure that downstream users
of data have the same ability to work with the data as upstream users.

So it's about the users continuing to be able to use the data rather
than improving it, although that may be a side effect in some cases.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Rob Myers]

On 28/12/15 01:23 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 
> Perhaps continued copyleft fragmentation is even in the (near term
> anyway) interest of OSM in order to encourage all others to use
> maximally permissive licenses.

This wouldn't help OSM due to the contributor agreement.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

[Rob Myers]

I don't understand this objection. If a company accidentally publishes 
something that's a problem with their procedures, not any license (free or 
proprietary).

On 23 September 2015 15:32:06 GMT-07:00, Alex Barth  wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> it might actually force
>> such a service provider to differentiate between geo-coding for
>public
>> vs in-house use.
>>
>
>This suggestion has come up before and I'd like to flag that this is
>impractical. No organization would and should take the risk that a
>potential future (accidental) publication of a private OpenStreetMap
>based
>work could jeopardize sensitive data. The risk is significant as even
>the
>publication of a Produced Work can bring the share alike stipulations
>of
>the ODbL to bear.
>
>
>
>
>___
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Rob Myers]

On 2015-09-22 16:38, Paul Norman wrote:

I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's
independent of the metadata guideline.

On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike 
interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal 
intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to 
specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data 
elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. 
mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM 
addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to 
non-OSM POIs and so forth.


It's that time again! :-)


Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a
geocoding context?


As with any other context, and as described by the license, when a 
substantial portion of the database is copied.


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Rob Myers]

On 2015-09-22 16:26, Alex Barth wrote:


Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike
interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal
intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to
specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data
elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g.
mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM
addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to
non-OSM POIs and so forth.


This would explicitly go against the license if it's a qualitative 
rather a quantitative statement.


Calling something "geocoding" is a distraction.

Look at what processes are involved (copying a database) and what the 
results are (a substantial or non-substantial amount of the database 
being copied).


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 02/11/14 02:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
 
 We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM 
 share alike to show for,

Then clearly OMS should have stuck with BY-SA for the database, as
that did gain third party data releases.

 but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the 
 project because of share alike.

If switching to a license that is more amenable to proprietary use
hasn't stopped increasing numbers of people walking away then,
again, the project should have stuck with BY-SA.

So the stronger share-alike license got more of the positive results
that you are blaming the weaker license for not achieving, and caused
less of the alleged harm you are attributing to it.

That sounds like an argument for stronger copyleft, not weaker.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUVtFBAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ3SoIAJ0NApsIcSEMUSiqnhvnY3fF
u3vY3n5MU5gNrJV9WxSwLObyV2imyMPfbZhlF2OPQCXp8D4uN6Mot+9/cD7F7nan
pjb0YIeHC0oruQrShoRTXFaHVCHBK7N4zOfhT+aI+gbavToYcGgcU4y38kM+DLml
M7HA246sFny7NjckGJqmyDoOp/U0Nhw3YHFII1ZfG7j1yohYSrVE40WE2/D0oPs/
pExMVktZija/rG9moXwyQyd/vdAMizcFlbpfPEAWDyYDpKOn0+l+WWK6Oiw2626r
ekKYAq+YDNf8lWl3o5SzmJS0uLLlzG/mSOK1+OUL7oq69t4HpGCQ471PvMHorRc=
=NhmN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 
 actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature
 that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share
 alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with
 the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself.

It's congenital, not viral. It propagates by inheritance, not
contagion.

;-)

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUPtbAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ91cH/1jbALOpOXN2kjNmTI1WkpuO
nk4HYxHMkuuGhJTjQ9FYFAAhDMw89DJ7AUMCP6AdjPCxQzlysgiOCyE5I/398MJi
qo3QWDlaWoV7MMiUzZuICwzbH3+LJAqFx886LLr/GSaH0pLkI0FsS0jZ1oMg+yaC
g7vu44F0KG4EPXZlfeJNp5ameCQTl4FqTBH6aB8ru35+Tu4w2TMbbbFDS/+XQg1A
Wc7uhOzUUA8ktTqZFPdH9dlbHE5Y9an9y140K+MoBXYvId9UEaLhV6PeOA/kYOA7
luYbUePtjX9EALbqtipslaAXVGQdfmtaJd159AHKEdRGX8wX4tOWCWSmxl6C2V4=
=ejQk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
 On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
 It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ...
 
 What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a
 paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing
 of OpenStreetMap data.
 
 Does it really deserve any more attention than that?

Uncertainty is simply a term of art that means obvious impediments
to my sense of entitlement.

Likewise, lack of clarity means haven't read the contributor terms.

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUP19AAoJECciMUAZd2dZJXMIAJLhG+9jU8qf82oxH2b3T5XU
jgCGd7ZovjUZmANZTZ9yjhjm4Um5Ch4iv6rAG2SftF4wEadzV4fVVbY4dE/QbEUr
8Z7hNW48Qs888ifXR7jrekbtKFox1jTKAWmQcZAUW9zMsKPzyVPk/dLTd1gBg+d0
vVNSAmdexOUZAbCksrHUTp4fdJhm8l+qwPlb43hVm4bLxp3WpIv32Mlb7PoWPgt8
/LIn+roW1R7ryFjcTaSZEseKNIX3rpo78p6UxbBFyRTdrufI7+YT4Zbf/M2tk+UX
ePwEcjuTpWhoNOKA7Gng51T2zTBhfDY+Fw6EhzfowbDZ9162yod8vg98/qv61XE=
=nOHH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 20/08/14 01:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 
 It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or
 correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion.

The page asserts:

Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL (section 1.):
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material,
text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part
of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a
Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database.

The rest of the page then silently slips from the idea that individual
geocodes (a term of art for co-ordinates Extracted from the
Database) are Produced Works (rather than individually not being
Substantial Extracts) to the idea that any number of geocodes are
still a Produced Work.

But neither the ODbL nor the page explain why a database of
geographical co-ordinates is more like an image, text or sound rather
than...a database. Or why if that database contains a Substantial
portion of the source Database it is not a Derivative Database.

The biggest blank on the page is therefore any explanation of why a
derivative database becomes a produced work if we call the queries
used to produce it geocoding rather than Extraction. :-/

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT9iF/AAoJECciMUAZd2dZrAoH/279WkdDxayizW3HTlxTeu1P
EdwVdGE3wt/j5hMnPw3aJvHUl3AYNyOlmPlAhwJDHJTw+C3m9q9YldMU2fmx+kkr
ZjYntIUfZsnZ1EHFl/Wj8Vx8EUaJjU/qhc1C0PYNpZXS1I9Xeb54BXmLGqwnp988
I1cyq3P1PgoDlzFU2eio6m61lOKPVqXxQCuegpbrkBqcCzCbHmwd/Km39iV4vfu8
icoEzwpgtl4v67HhFZkXtgeQY06xcHjH6641+hVZCYE16ozAsVFevW8a+urUbmkn
B921qizR2SsB0yi/O74RRQNehgCTGrcToKzLP5oEKfjopBI2w1p9dM+Uc7ydd1s=
=F2f1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 30/07/14 08:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 
 
 Il giorno 30/lug/2014, alle ore 16:44, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com 
 mailto:a...@mapbox.com ha scritto:
 
 your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a 
 pair of coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a 
 work?
 
 Yeah, there's no definition of 'work' in the ODbL, just a 
 non-exclusive list of examples in the definition of Produced
 Work.

The examples have a certain flavour though.

 yes, but there is also a definition of derivative database, into
 which geocoding results seem to fit perfectly.

In particular a database of geocoding results.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT2eVAAAoJECciMUAZd2dZV/8IAMkuDERtaSP1BwC0j2N/UMog
8ndzRQ3YHpNsLv/eFrd/5jx/T/S+iAv2kbCe4dEDql1Gagu4Ex5lSZpiPGeicDwF
NJ3qS96kQv6Ns4rfHh1tBBLOMLNJTLmjgs5XragDaJ319va4xXoo0oTkamZw5yNn
4aEHeLYcx0VtuySTMZ3oiBwRdn0JvasvHY1m9Lt0DJr+qDQgt5F1D+VmPV6OZ1TJ
5Z14q9r+Tz3G3f9neNUWHJdmDq8BN1mL0Fz14fzuOD6BnDR86RFw7U31/0e2Og4L
MhqPz2J7OcSG5xTEtQ1QkrXBjshb69m1BWjS7Y0JOu2mZpYPymIkoVvinzUy6uo=
=LPte
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 25/07/14 04:38 PM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
 
 I agree that geocoded private data must be allowed to stay
 private.

The ODbL goes to great lengths to explain that it only covers publicly
released data.

 At a minimum, we need to find a way to say actively reverse
 engineering the database can trigger share alike, but the ability
 to reverse engineer it does not.

OK. But we also need to find a way of saying that if that ability
leads to that result then there isn't a defence of being surprised.

 A lot of the responses here just say to not cross the Substantial 
 threshold. That feels like a total cop out - an argument saying OSM
 and its users should remain small and insubstantial... which
 doesn't seem to align with our goals.

That's something of a conceptual slippage. OSM and its users should
become large and substantial (as it were...). Non-free exploitation of
the resulting data should not.

 The fact that we’re scaring away well-intentioned users is sad.

Well-intentioned users don't want to circumvent the license in order
to recreate substantial sections of it for non-free use.

By definition.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT00kHAAoJECciMUAZd2dZRncH/1R2YvZg8/N+6mCBtEW6HJvw
znnCYeYgaK88fRVAvqpZ7bdXQBb9yN0Tbx/Xewoop6dZEp4XSMO4EezciM4kS341
e3mm6XuUiJy+3zYL+qBxjSE/zPmMI/fINM0wR3Tc3w3yT/cU61stSd6ux2bwFNJJ
Aa7C0kgkXfV2ItSbBBH6GN0PWkMC4+1fkVe4fEnbgWrT6tF3KlSF4+cKmIALuMc3
ACEyVJUgKCiy4UXXXPF6oRn031gF5GgkXIMnLChLE5HL4DlCWTlLCNPvLIz2N9T6
WKKIp+4hsEs1J5a7Rv5Akl6aE7QVHeA1+YzCYB/dAXe13o0hBa+HY3tPzNaTMzA=
=Nqb5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 14/07/14 06:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
 
 Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations
 around dropping share alike my impression was that there was a
 consensus around unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike
 advocates.
 
 Just like how CC-BY-SA created a grey area around the SA
 implications for the rendered map which wasn't good for OSM,

Which grey area was that?

 ODbL does the same with permanent geocoding. To make OSM viable for
 geocoding we can't have its ODbL infecting the datasets it's used
 on.

Contrary to Microsoft's lovely old FUD, copyleft isn't infectious:
it's heritable. ;-)

The ODbL represents a major shift away from full-stack copyleft in
order to address precisely the concerns that are being raised yet
again here. I suspect this is a classic example of a good compromise
being something that displeases everyone equally.

Luis mentioned that there's case law for the concept of substantial.
There's no mention of this on the current Wiki page. I think it would
be productive to seek that out next.

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTxHL7AAoJECciMUAZd2dZ31UIAK7vPZ5B5j9NVkbgVwYvA8h8
mYPt2l1+7/+sqYMpa8TLYubYaURWa096MLk+FQUcnteUWLy0mKDbVODydhU0WBhL
t1sUehJjI0cHYZqE4TG54u8x1O/ADUGnCSJJwsTbuW3njXC2cMcRzkQf680zpBon
pJkpoUWkwDE2M8dbbx9vmdoJMR3w847UD57bTINGy6azS/YyUFAL3FhqpyHa2gbZ
ExowM2LadTEhQgFFAk5whCuOdzU3HYObfkS6YCKgzoDRMaZmMVCTecxbD4QXtF/C
m2XlyLo/h9D/MrhxpPSAsWWHUdHWjWP2S7HqkSmiCQ7/zy17XdyWvug7SLKReTw=
=/Vhb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 05/05/14 09:16 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
 
 We have raised the question of Dynamic Data in a dedicated guideline
 given that a number of things are not so clear and even while, using the
 example from the guideline, the occupancy of a parking lot is an
 observable fact it is questionable if we would want to require that
 anybody that creates such or similar application has to provide a real
 time feed of the data on ODbL terms.

If a loophole for this case is inserted, expect to see a sudden increase
in realtime (and realtime) generation of data. ;-)

If we change realtime to ephemeral, mapping data is ephemeral in
geological time. If we stick with Dynamic, well, SQL queries and views
are dynamic aren't they?

If I want to e.g. combine parking data with littering data for a study
or translate it into audio so I can consult it safely while driving,
access to the data is useful. This may not amount to a moral imperative,
but the debate is currently framed in terms of utility...

Deciding which data is and isn't useful (to users, not OSM) has two
problems:

1. It requires an Oracle. We cannot know which data is and isn't useful.
For example the locations of taxis in London may not seem all that
useful after the fact, but:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Merchandiseoldid=1838

2. People will always push to avoid the license, and any exception will
be abused. That isn't a reason to not add an exception or clarification,
but it is a reason to be wary of pressure for them.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 03/05/14 08:51 AM, Michael Collinson wrote:
 
 Geocoding: So I have to share a patient's medical record because it is
 geocoded against OSM?

Who with?

 Dynamic Data: So if I use OpenStreetMap car park location data, I have
 to share the real-time occupancy data?

Who with?

 Algorithmic transformations: So I thought of this clever idea to
 pre-format OSM data for fast loading into my game. Now I have to share
 my that or my algorithm?

Who with?

 General maps: I want to use OSM to show locations of restaurants on my
 restaurant review site. Now I have to share the reviews?

Who with?

 *And share-alike only applies to what we collect.*

But the license doesn't exist to collect data for OSM.

It exists to ensure that all the users (or in the terms of the license,
all its recipients if you Use it Publicly) of that data, in combination
with whichever other data and in whatever form and wherever they
encounter it, are free to use it.

If that leads to patients having better access to their medical data,
people being able to find somewhere to park, players of games being able
to maintain and modify them creatively to build communities around them
and drive sales, and people being able to check the actual rankings of
the restaurants they're being directed to that's definitely a win for
Open Data.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
 
 But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the
 original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require
 people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it.

The users of the data may want it. The license exists to benefit them,
not (just) OSM.

If the actual effects worked against this then yes there would be a problem.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 30/04/14 02:35 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
 
 I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood,
 never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the
 creation of a produced work.

It's been of use to at least one person. The person who created the
produced work.

But if the license can encourage more cost effective and environmentally
friendly computation that's an unexpected benefit. ;-)

 But your argument about also shows that there are mappers who ask for a
 lot more than just giving data back when you fix things.

It shows that the intent of the license is for *all* users of the data
to be free to use it however they encounter it.

If that requires more than bug fixes then so be it. The license doesn't
exist to protect corporations from having to pay for proprietary data
(or to drum up contributions for OSM), it exists to protect the freedom
of every user of the data.

 Thus it would
 be foolish for a data consumer to assume they only have to follow that
 spirit, as much as I wish that was enough.

If the data isn't used to produce the work, it doesn't have to be provided.

Trying to work around this isn't foolish, it's malicious.

Where there is legitimate uncertainty it should be cleared up if
possible. But always to favour *all* users of the data.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 28/04/14 11:42 AM, Steve Coast wrote:
 
 In a narrow way, this all a good thing. It shows the growth and maturity
 of the project, that there are those out there that want to own it or
 take all the advantages without even saying where the data came from.
 But in the end, we have to defend ourselves for what little, tiny things
 we ask.

Excellent.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

[Rob Myers]

On 17/02/14 11:33 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
 
 Many of the companies failing to meet attribution requirements are using
 OpenStreetMap data for the majority of their map data, and sometimes have
 no attribution at all. The OpenStreetMap requirements are less onerous than
 alternative commercial sources, and our attribution requirements are the
 same as or less onerous than most open data from governments.

And attribution for data is not vanity. It tells users that they are
free to use the data and how to access it.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

[Rob Myers]

On 03/10/13 10:06 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
 On 03/10/13 17:21, Rob Myers wrote:
 On 03/10/13 04:32 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
 On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote:
 Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work?
 It's possible to give a produced work derived from OSM any license you
 like (if that's what you mean?) so long as it retains OSM's attribution.
 Including all rights reserved.
 But doesn't BY-SA claim to cover the database rights? Doesn't that clash
 with the ODbL?

 
 A produced work isn't a database, so BY-SA 4's (proposed) protection of
 database rights can't be relevant to it, surely.

I'm very happy if this is the case.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

[Rob Myers]

On 03/10/13 04:32 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
 On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote:

 Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work?
 
 It's possible to give a produced work derived from OSM any license you
 like (if that's what you mean?) so long as it retains OSM's attribution.
 Including all rights reserved.

But doesn't BY-SA claim to cover the database rights? Doesn't that clash
with the ODbL?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

[Rob Myers]

On 01/10/13 03:48 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
 On 01/10/13 06:01, Stephan Knauss wrote:
 On 01.10.2013 06:28, Pekka Sarkola wrote:
 Questions: Is CC-BY-4.0 compatible with OSM current license (ODbl)? If
 data is released under CC-BY-4.0: can we import it to OSM?

 To my understanding not even ODbL would be suitable for import into OSM.

 To be suitable for OSM it must conform with the contributor terms
 which allow a future license change.
 
 That applies to data added by individual contributors, but the OSMF can
 allow imports under other terms.
 
 See the preamble to
 http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
 
 I imagine there would probably be no clash with our principles in the
 case of CC-BY so long as the copyright owner was happy with our system
 for attribution.

BY-SA 4.0 looks like it clashes with the ODbl due to its coverage of
Copyright-like Rights.

Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work?


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [cc-community] a legal framework of open (geo)data

[Rob Myers]

 Original Message 
Subject: [cc-community] a legal framework of open (geo)data
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:22:53 +0200
From: Simone Aliprandi simone.alipra...@gmail.com
Reply-To: cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org
To: cc-community cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org

A legal framework of open (geo)data.
A research document by Simone Aliprandi and Carlo Piana for
FreeGIS.net Project:
http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2013/06/freegis-D51-opendata-legal-framework.html
.
Comments and sharing are welcome.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:36:48 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:


The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then
distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without

releasing

the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not a
bug.


Not every feature is a good feature, just like in software. There are
features that are just a bad idea. In this case, the share alike
feature protects us from something that just won't hurt OSM anyway, 
in

fact it would help OSM.


But OSM doesn't exist to gobble up data.

It exists to ensure that everyone is free to use its data.

Please note that by use I mean interact with, not prevent other 
people from using. If you want to lock people out of access to OSM data 
in your application, you are preventing use of that data.



Someone goes mixes OSM with proprietary data, sells the result?
Awesome! This is exactly what's going on today with tiles, no? If the
individual, company or organization who sells improved OSM data does
not give back into the OSM ecosystem by creating better tools or
contributing unencumbered data, they're just plain dumb.


No, they are smart because they are giving their shareholders value 
rather than leaking it to third parties.



Open source or open data is not something you're forced to do, you're
doing it because you're smart.


But where you do it, you should actually do it.

And where the condition of being free to use that data is that others 
should be free to use it, that is not unreasonable.



There is further a false premise that most potential data users who
have to weigh opening non-OSM data they're mixing in somehow have a
choice. They more likely don't and hence we lose them as contributors
entirely.


You are arguing that users of OSM data should not be free to use OSM 
data just in case someone decides to gift back some data to OSM (despite 
the economic irrationality of this) so that people can benefit 
fromnot being free to use it.


That...doesn't work.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote:


As I understand our license change, it can be described as this:
(Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit 
history

where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited
anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner
where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning 
operations

where based on data history in the database.


Yes. This was to ensure there was no possible legal conflict, and no 
possible emotional upset.



Now imagine this:
A decliner adds street names on two streets Street A and Street B,
they have an intersection. Then I by Local knowledge know that 
there

is a shop in the intersection of Street A and Street B add that shop
(Shop A) to the map. Someone else adds another shop (Shop B) to the
right of the shop I added (Shop A) based on the fact that Shop B is
right of Shop A. Now the license change happened and the street names
where removed, but as far as I know the shops where left as they had
no direct history in the database related to the decliners edits. The
positions of Shop A is directly deducted from the decliners
copyrighted information about what the streets are called. The
position of Shop B is then based on the position of Shop A, therefor
indirectly deducted from the copyrighted information of the decliner.


Which part of the data from the decliner's edit sets is incorporated in 
your additions?


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:


As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
from prohibiting stuff!


3

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote:

I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid
term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at
hand.

+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the
cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is
pretty terrifying.


-1 This is obvious nonsense.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote:


Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is
not an option.


And I'd like you to make me a sandwich.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:


It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.


That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You 
just can't prohibit people from using them freely.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing

[Rob Myers]

On 28/11/12 12:37, Kate Chapman wrote:

I don't believe that would apply to a derivative work, I think that
just applies to the work itself.

I'm interested to hear other interpretations though.


It's not particularly coherent given the obvious intent of the licence, 
but I think the anti-TPM clause applies to the work as used in adaptations.


I don't remember a definitive answer from CC on this, though, and it's 
not in the FAQ.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

[Rob Myers]

On 10/31/2012 09:20 PM, James Livingston wrote:


there isn't really a clear line between a permanent database and a
transient structure.


Other than that the former can be made available and the latter cannot 
(practically speaking).


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

[Rob Myers]

On 10/30/2012 07:19 AM, Igor Brejc wrote:


Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative
Databases.


They also cannot request RAM dumps of the routers and switches that ODbL 
data is transmitted over as they download it.


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data

[Rob Myers]

On 09/20/2012 08:46 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:

that sounds more like my conclusion, it is the end of the road for
share alike and sharing for osm.



basically it is turning into a dead end road.


What in the hoof are you talking about?

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

[Rob Myers]

On 08/10/2012 07:25 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:


Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in
the USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to
ask the employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might
be affected, some companies claim all employees copyright. see the
discussion on the CC list.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-August/007283.html


If that's true, then their employers already have a claim on their work 
in OSM. That is a problem that the CTs can prevent.


An FSF-style employer waiver scheme would allow US employees to 
contribute without the threat of this problem.


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work

[Rob Myers]

On 07/24/2012 08:19 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:

Hello,


ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the 
original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate 
part of it.


Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your 
responsibilities due to the link to the license from the attribution.


There's no magic, the ODbL just follows its data using attribution.

(Also, viral is a misnomer. Copyleft is inherited from a parent rather 
than caught from a neighbor.)


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work

[Rob Myers]

On 07/24/2012 10:01 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:

Hello,


doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then
another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his
CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license?

You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be attributed at
each point and no break will occur.

Ok, but how an attribution itself should overcome CC-By-SA's rights?


It doesn't. It just advertises the database.


I mean if the last-in-the-chain user sees OSM, and even looks at the
ODbL license, how could he assume the ODbL license applies to him
instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions
are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are
stronger?


Each license covers the material that it covers.

If the user uses the database, or a substantial part of it, the 
attribution ensures that they know the requirements for using the database.



CC-By-SA's points 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b doesn't seem to leave place for
another copyrights inside, and from my point of view they don't have
to as (in my NAL-opinion) ODbL doesn't try to impose on Produced Work
any rights other than attribution (point 4.3: Notice for using
output).


Sure, this is about retaining the freedom to work with the data that has 
been used to produce the produced work.



If ODbL should apply to a database retraced from CC-By-SA tiles (let's
rememeber they also contain someone else's work, like those trails and
mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would
have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with
CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_
CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply...


BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0 
notwithstanding).


ODbL is still a comparatively new license and it is reasonable to have 
questions about it. I would recommend going to the people who wrote it 
and asking them directly, which you can do on the odc-dicuss list:


http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work

[Rob Myers]

On 07/24/2012 08:51 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:

Hello,


ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the original
database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate part of it.

Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your
responsibilities due to the link to the license from the attribution.

There's no magic, the ODbL just follows its data using attribution.

Yes, but I can do my Produced Work and it'll CC-By-SA (let's say I
just do tiles from map of my area), attributing it. Someone else will
use my work (use the tiles, enriching it with self-generated trails,
added mountain tops etc), and put it on CC-By-SA (my CC-By-SA
doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then
another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his
CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license?


You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be 
attributed at each point and no break will occur.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view,
is that it be interoperable with the ODbL.


I recommend that people define compatible and interoperable 
thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in 
different contexts. GNU GPL compatibility, for example, basically means 
derivatives of the work can be covered by the GPL.


Having read the current 4.0 draft (and IANAL), I think SA 4's proposed 
database right copyleft clashes with the ODbL's:


http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt

Section 2 – License.

(a)  Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, 
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive 
license to:

[...]
(3)	where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above, 
extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work,


[...]

Section 3 - License Conditions.  The rights granted in Section 2(a) of 
this Public License are expressly made subject to and limited by the 
following conditions:

[...]
(c) ShareAlike.  If you Share an Adaptation,

(1) You must release it under the terms of one of the following:

(i) this Public License,
[...]

I will raise this on odc-discuss.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/07/2012 07:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike
licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a
stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works
under a non-free license.


I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the
derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be
stronger than what CC does.


But CC 4.0 also *appears* to allow intermixing unlicensed work in a way 
that either 3.0 didn't or didn't make obvious (the 4.0 licences are much 
easier to read...).


I intend to discuss this on cc-licenses.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote:
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL3a. I would like to use
 OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you?

I recommend Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA, as
that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright notice.
Spelling out Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike v3.0 and adding
years to each notice wouldn't hurt either.

I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is
my understanding that the English word has international legal weight
but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't.

For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url):

https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3

Other than that, the FAQ is excellent but I do obviously recommend
getting someone who IAL to take a look at it. I know that adding endless
boilerplate legal text is bad, but more legal text is better than more
misunderstanding.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 06/03/12 20:30, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
 
 I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is
 my understanding that the English word has international legal weight
 but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't.
 
 That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really?

Para 7 here, I may have been wrong about the copyright symbol:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Grepping Berne for the word English doesn't immediately show anything
germane to this however.

 For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url):

 https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3
 
 Nobody has ever sent a request for a copy of a license via post,
 AFAIK. :)

Oh I'm disappointed now. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?

[Rob Myers]

On 19/02/12 11:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 
 But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0
 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple
 majority board decision for that.

Yep. And 2.0 could then be upgraded to a higher version with the next
planet dump. This might be desirable if, for example, 4.0 has
irresistibly wonderful database right handling.

Everyone is following the CC 4.0 drafting process and providing input,
right? :-)

 This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power.

[inserts quote about power and responsibility.]

 Could we - could OSMF - in such a situation simply say: Know what, Mr
 big guy? Either you play nice and release that data, or we'll simply go
 back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 next month.

Yep. Although they could continue to use the existing data. Which might
make delicensing feel less of a(n immediate) threat.

 I don't assume that we would really *want* to go back but it wouldn't
 exactly kill us, and depending on what is at stake (I assume it could
 easily be a multi million dollar thing) we (the project) would lose much
 less than those we'd be up against. We wouldn't really want to but we
 *could*, and the fact that the big guy would only have to piss off the
 wrong four people at OSMF to ruin his product could balance one thing or
 the other in our favour.

Protecting the freedom of individuals to use the data that OSM gathers
and distributes isn't about pissing people off, etc., but yes there is
apparently a nuclear option there.

The collateral damage would be eye-watering though, in terms of burnt
karma, lost trust, and punishment of innocent actors.

 1. Is my reasoning correct?

I believe so.

 2. Are we happy with OSMF board wielding this power - should we (the
 OSMF membership) perhaps curtail OSMF board's powers by creating a rule
 that says that any decision regarding the license under which the data
 is published must be taken by the whole membership and not just the board?

Do you mean the foundation membership or active contributors to OSM?

 3. If the CTs were changed post-license-change to omit CC-BY-SA 2.0 from
 the list of available licenses, then the above scenario would become
 impractical - we could then not simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 without
 losing data from new contributors (unless going through the 2/3 rule).

The CTs could then be changed back, and data contributed prior to the
initial change could be licenced back down.

 Such a change in the CTs would create more security for anyone investing
 in a product based on our data by taking away the bargaining chip I have
 written about. Does the power to change the CTs currently sit with the
 board alone, and are we happy with that?

 Pass.

 The power to modify the CTs carries with it the power to entrench the
 current license practically forever; someone with liberty to change the
 CT as they see fit could, for example, simply strike out the future
 license change possible with 2/3 of active contributors clause and
 therefore create a situation in which no future OSMF can change the
 license without going through what we go through now. Of course the CTs
 cannot be changed retroactively but doing so for new signups is
 effective enough.

And this is part of the problem with listing specific licences. The CTs
should explain the idea, not fossilize the expression. Yes, this will
impose large social and time costs on future decisions by requiring
interminable debate about whether any change fits the spirit and the
letter of what is intended. But that is better than not being able to do
so, or having to change the CTs in order to allow it by fiat. Changing
the CTs doesn't exactly seem to make people feel loved.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

[Rob Myers]

On 29/01/12 23:11, Mike Dupont wrote:
 
 My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the
 rights to their own work license it freely.

They do so in free recognition that their contingent power should not
constrain the fundamental freedom of others. That is, they recognise the
persuasive moral case for doing so.

 This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, 

Only under state granted monopolies with varying justifications.

 they are my
 contributions that I then willingly share with others. If I did not
 own them, how could I contribute them?

Copyleft is a general neutralization of copyright (rather than a local
neutralization, like permissive licences). Nothing more.

If we believe that copyleft is a good thing (and I certainly do) then
this involves a suspension of the privileges of romantic authorship as
embodied in the law. Despite our self interest in our authorship, our
general self interest is better server by deprecating our self interest
in our authorship.

It is reasonable to object to the ODbL on the grounds of principle as it
is not a full-stack copyleft, rather a database copyleft. But this is
because of how it affects the class of individuals that use resources
placed under it (which includes its authors...). Not because of its
treatment of our investment in our individual authorship of elements in
work under it.

This may read as polemic. That's only because it is. ;-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

[Rob Myers]

On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote:
 Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would
 amount to prejury

If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a
false representation.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing the license

[Rob Myers]

On 12/12/11 16:08, Michael Collinson wrote:
 We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our
 contributor terms [1] and summary [2] .
 
 Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under
 CC-BY-SA 2.0.  However, my initial thought it that it is more practical
 to (also) offer them under a license that does not require attribution.
 Legal pages get confusing when they contain text not completely to the
 point, particularly to non-native language readers. PD0 springs to
 mind.  Does anyone think this is a bad idea and if so why?

It's a very good idea. CC0 might go too far (I don't know), possibly
something like you can copy and modify as you wish but don't claim it's
the original would be better.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Rob Myers]

On 29/11/11 22:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 
 IMHO there is a difference between a travel photo and a map rendering.
 This is a jpeg:
 http://www.tnooz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ITA-QR-code-1.jpg

This is a perfect example of the difference between the content and the
structure of a database. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Rob Myers]

 Eugene Alvin Villar seav80@... writes:

 The European definition of a database is a collection of independent
 works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical
 way and individually accessible by electronic or other means.

Which really, really should be the end of this.

A PNG doesn't fit this description as its intent is to encode a single
complete image and the pixels are not independent. Likewise PNG and SVG.
Place them in a systematic or methodical collection and you have a
database of images. But this is separate from their contents.

If I place a travel photo of mine into a PNG and then print it out, I
have not gained a database right. Likewise if I autotrace it to SVG
before printing it. There is a single work, arbitrarily encoded. No
database right.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material

[Rob Myers]

On 26/11/11 23:43, Nic Roets wrote:
 Rob, I'm not sure what you mean.
 
 So I'm going to give a simple example. Suppose someone has a table with
 museums and their capabilities. He then combines it with OSM to create a
 map. If the capabilities is something opaque like type1 and type2,
 then the resultant map can be useless to us. (Reverse engineering is not
 reliable).
 
 It's possible that an exact definition of type1 and type2 exist, but
 requiring the person to publish it may be too intrusive. For example it
 could involve some statistical scoring process like Page Rank (which
 involves processing every web page on the Internet).

If the only way the database can function is with data not included in
it, then the database is incomplete and not the source of the produced work.

(IMO.)

 It's also possible that type1 can be completely subjective e.g. the
 person thinks that the paintings in the museum are beautiful.

That's a definition right there. :-)

 So I really can't see how useful source data can have a water tight,
 yet practical definition.

It can however state that obfuscation or don't wanna aren't sufficient
reasons for something not being a derivative database. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material

[Rob Myers]

On 25/11/11 11:07, Nic Roets wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Richard Fairhurst
 rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 
 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful
 source data.
 (ODbL does.)
 
 I honestly doubt that ODbL will achieve this. For example, if someone
 decides to use some convoluted tagging system without publishing a
 specification, his data will mean very little to the community.

If it's that complex it's part of the data... :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - initial results

[Rob Myers]

On 09/09/11 22:33, Ed Avis wrote:
 Rob Myers rob@... writes:
 
 In the US, the two lawyers found that the OSM map data is
 copyrightable.  They mentioned the explicit inclusion of maps in
 copyright law 

 But geodata is not a map, and the copyright on the database is not the
 copyright on its contents.
 
 As I understood it, the precedents they found showed that copyright does cover
 the geodata contained in the database, and is not dependent on having a paper
 map or the difference between database and contents.  However I didn't have
 time to go over these matters in depth.
 
 If the written report doesn't address your concern, would you like to join in
 a conference call with the legal team so you can put it to them directly?
 I expect I could arrange this.

Oh cool. No, if the precedents cover it that addresses my comment above.

Thanks.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - initial results

[Rob Myers]

On 09/09/11 15:57, Ed Avis wrote:
 
 In the US, the two lawyers found that the OSM map data is
 copyrightable.  They mentioned the explicit inclusion of maps in
 copyright law 

But geodata is not a map, and the copyright on the database is not the
copyright on its contents.

 My barrister in the UK fist considered the situation under the
 Copyright Act 1911. 

The 1911 act has long since been repealed in the UK, though.

 - That's the summary, as I best translate it from my notes of the two
 phone calls.

Thank you for going to all the trouble of doing this and sharing the
results publicly.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Rob Myers]

On 15/08/11 22:16, Florian Lohoff wrote:


I have contributed a lot for nearly 3 years and now i am blocked out
so i am not contributing anymore and i ceased all my OSM work already.


Since your contributions are PD and therefore CT compatible I don't 
understand what the problem is.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Rob Myers]

On 14/08/11 18:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:


If the sysadmins block your account


The sysadmins have not blocked your account.

The system has been changed to implement the licence changeover plan.

You may not like the plan, but neither its form nor the effects of its 
implementation are actions that the sysadmins have initiated against you.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Rob Myers]

On 11/08/11 16:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:


I see no difference in re-publishing text, as in our email lists
and the database, properly citing Google as source.


You are correct. Both are breaches of copyright where it applies.

There are two important differences though.

Firstly custom and fair use are on the side of quoting emails in 
conversations.


Secondly, Google haven't taken all your maps and incorporated them but 
you have quoted many other people's emails.



You will probably say then that Google's license prohibits that use
-even when attributing- and then I come back to my (much earlier)
statement that licenses are there to restrict free use of data, not to
allow.


To the extent that databases are covered by rights or contracts that is 
false.



Anyway, if default IP right allows for citing when attributing, why
do our users need to agree to a ODBL license ?


Allow or require?


Is there anything more that we like them to comply with ?


To pass on the freedom they receive.

But if you want data to be PD, make it PD and then someone else can 
incorporate it into the database under the CTs.


I really don't see what the problem is.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

[Rob Myers]

On 27/07/11 16:43, Tobias Knerr wrote:
 
 And why the hurry?

If this is a hurry I'd hate to see stalling. :-)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Rob Myers]

On 08/07/11 10:31, Maarten Deen wrote:
 
 IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact
 that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that
 signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention.
 And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about
 the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or
 tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That
 designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the
 geography of the place.

Now define road. ;-)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Rob Myers]

On 08/07/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
 
 And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about 
 the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or 
 tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That 
 designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the 
 geography of the place.

One bit of earth or tarmac is pretty much the same as another.

What makes them a road?

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Rob Myers]

On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

+1


/2

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

[Rob Myers]

On 01/07/11 09:43, Tobias Knerr wrote:
 
 The only motivation for data SA I can somewhat understand is to open up
 data that can be contributed back to OSM.

Sharealike is meant to guarantee that the individual users of the
produced work have the same freedom to work with the data as the person
who produced it did.

Any gifts to the *project* that result from this freedom are a side-effect.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

[Rob Myers]

On 01/07/11 10:51, Jonathan Harley wrote:
 
 I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being
 naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many
 different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with
 additional contents in the form of already rendered map data, with
 poor accuracy and no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible
 for things like a road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the
 derived database under a license that's compatible with ODbL but
 incompatible with the CTs.

OSM is not the presumed beneficiary of this kind of thing. The
downstream users of the easy dodges are.

 I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your
 database/method unless someone requests it. But we have to assume that
 sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go around doing exactly that.

That sounds like a *very* good idea. ;-)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License compatibility clarification

[Rob Myers]

On 24/06/11 20:35, Jonas Häggqvist wrote:

Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA?


No. Notably, the ODbL isn't.


Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use
it (in the CT/ODbL future)?


No, as it's incompatible with the ODbL.


For extra credit, explain why/why not.


BY-SA and the ODbl are incompatible copylefts.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[Rob Myers]

On 17/06/11 09:34, Steve Bennett wrote:
 
 Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is  ODbL
 considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that
 is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could
 someone confirm?)

The answer is no, unless the person who holds the rights to the BY-SA
work explicitly chooses to separately licence it under the ODbL.

This is because BY-SA is a copyleft licence and so it doesn't allow the
work or its derivatives to be placed under another licence.

Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
Produced Work.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[Rob Myers]

On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote:
 So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced
 works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from,

Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about
this before:

http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-July/000275.html

http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-August/000282.html

 unless the
 ODBL prevents this in which case tile users must agree with a contract
 preventing them from doing this activity,

If you miraculously manage to create a Derived Database from the
Produced Work, you know the requirements due to the advertising on the
Produced Work (which BY-SA handles under the BY part of the licence).

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[Rob Myers]

On 17/06/11 15:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
 
 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
 that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
 which would prevent their uses.  Does that mean that only the older
 licenses can be used for produced works?

They just say that they only cover copyright (see 1.h in BY-SA 3.0
Unported).

But do look at how the DbCL interacts with the ODbL in Produced Works.
There isn't a copyright clash.

 Looking at GPLv3 and other licenses it is becoming more common for
 licenses to assure that the content is not restricted by those
 additional rights, and it makes sense because in some way those
 additional rights make the works not free.

Copyright makes the work non-free, but the GPL uses that. :-)

And GPL 3 says: “Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply
to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks..

It also includes a patent licence.

So the GPL includes, rather than excludes, those rights in order to
ensure that they do not restrict the work. This is the ODbL's strategy
as well.

Some people disagree with this for coherent philosophical reasons. I
disagree with them. :-)

 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
 publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
 country B without database rights?  The second person is then as far
 as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract.  Is that
 incorrect?

Copyright may apply in country B.

There will be pathological cases where copyright, database right, and
contract law do not apply. At the moment, only the first is used though,
so there will be even less coverage.

(IANAL, TINLA.)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[Rob Myers]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
 Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced
 work and so on.

It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it
better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Navigon to Sell OpenStreetMap POIs Packages for PNDs

[Rob Myers]

On 14/06/11 15:03, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 andrzej zaborowski wrote:
 That means we can mix it with OSM, but not contribute it back to 
 OSM because the new contributor terms don't allow using ODbL 
 licensed data.
 
 The standard Contributor Terms don't have to be the only Contributor Terms.

But it helps. ;-)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Rob Myers]

On 08/06/11 17:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:

the claim that
everyone who likes the Share-Alike-principle is a fanatic.


I'm certainly a copyleft fanatic, but I'm sure there are some entirely 
reasonable copyleft proponents as well.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Rob Myers]

On 07/06/11 12:37, Ed Avis wrote:
 Matt Amos zerebubuth@... writes:
 
 i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
 the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from
 Creative Commons itself!
 
 I would be interested to read that.

Science Commons certainly used to say that the licences *shouldn't* be
used for data.

 My understanding is that Creative Commons have affirmed what has demonstrably
 been the case all along - that CC-BY-SA certainly can be used for data, as
 OSM is doing now.

They are going to look at improving use of the licences for data in the
next revision.

BY-SA can indeed be used for data(base) copyright to the extent that you
can claim copyright on data(bases).

And that's the problem. Copyright in this area is uneven
internationally, irregular even within jurisdictions like the US, and
not the only restriction on the use of data(bases).

 They noted that it would not magically extend copyright to things not covered
 by copyright. 

Such as data(bases), depending on where you live and which cases you
look at.

 That is quite true, but it does not mean that map data is not
 covered by copyright.

Nor does it mean that it is, for the reasons I have given.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means

[Rob Myers]

On 06/06/11 14:52, Maarten Deen wrote:
 
 But the current action is: accept or lose the ability to map. That is
 close to coercion and not a valid base to claim that 2/3's agree to this.

It is not anywhere near coercion. OSM is not the state, and you can map
wherever else you like.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license for Wiki Loves Monuments

[Rob Myers]

On 05/14/2011 06:01 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:

Funny, based on my last question, the OSM will not be able to use
cc-by-sa data in the future.


Hence the question, I imagine. :-)

PDDL/CC0 for the data would avoid this question, or dual-licencing 
ODbL/BY-SA might be good.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 19/04/11 11:18, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
 
 Instead he original phrase sounds hostile to me... what about you ?

The rights need to be granted in that way so they can be passed on to users.

So, no, it doesn't sound hostile. It sounds like it makes the operation
of OSMF in-keeping with its charter possible.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/18/2011 10:06 PM, Simon Ward wrote:

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:


Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered
open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ .
Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's
probably good that this is mentioned explicitly.


“commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to
be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated.  Just
allow “any field of endeavour”.  KISS, etc.


Since there are licences that explicitly exclude commercial use that 
used in projects branded open (OpenCourseWare being a particularly 
egregious example of this) it is worthwhile mentioning commercial use, 
however vague it is as a concept.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 17/04/11 09:51, Florian Lohoff wrote:
 
 But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at
 the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of 
 copyright is a no go for some.

GCC has hardly been unsuccessful, though.

Apache either.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

[Rob Myers]

On 17/04/11 14:17, Francis Davey wrote:
 
 Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other
 licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s).
 
 Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says
 You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which directly
 contradicts what is said in 4(b). Clearly what is intended is that
 there is a general rule against sublicensing, subject to a specific
 set of permissions under clause 4(b) even though this comes under a
 heading Restrictions. Re-distribution under a licence is
 sublicensing and cannot be anything else.

Have you bought this up on cc-community?

If not please could you. :-)

Thanks.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/17/2011 04:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:


And if OSMF (whoever they may be)wants that to be the case, I step out.


That seems a reasonable resolution.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Rob Myers]

On 08/04/11 07:55, Ed Avis wrote:
 I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
 CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
 requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF.  Then everyone 
 could
 just keep on mapping.

I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's
concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually
been announced yet.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 24/03/11 13:13, Simon Poole wrote:
 
 The issue wrt to the wording is if to use a strong must not infringe
 vs. a weak should not infringe (in the German translation).

This would be an issue if the document stated that it uses the
definitions provided by RFC 2119 and the words were capitalised.

But this isn't an issue in plain language, where the words are synonyms.

So it isn't an issue.

- - Rob.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNi1mlAAoJEOqcdhxmxssCqIoH/1Go1u3XQB8mqUuHKYgTy9aL
gmpf8tLXvO3ysDYwSoK3DqqbXDRwVCH5ruZ6O1Alzv+zB0WjLagSQ8mdVtdykDz0
2MmmlqozT62jH/MueHQGc6pcZG55VWTWJAAThhH0lcvCLni49FjGNeq2jYdoZQA6
W8U9uz7OMir0u+3RZyQPZ0ZgoTIUCZOF3XwTYyJKiC09LEKrNinYGM9HCiWtidwp
4ODmCSMfiyLSdAE/FtvUNtxTpYiz/id497R1QcRZ3EyEFhVdMVYdYf7YwSch7lpA
/KF9IxjqpY3qIibamo36redO726jnpkB3in4o2lZ++3DFaXjD403WycaWPklD3Y=
=jYJ5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone ought to do something ... dealing with violations of OSM's geodata license

[Rob Myers]

On 03/21/2011 06:31 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Effectively policing *any* license would very likely require a
*multiple* of OSMF's whole current budget.


The FSF has one paid compliance officer to look after the whole of GNU 
and any other cases that they get involved in.


gpl-violations.org is all volunteers.

For the projects I've spoken to, enforcement is usually a phone call, 
not a court case.



Do you want to stand before
mappers and tell them for every pound we spend for servers to make
mapping a nicer experience, we spend five pounds to seek out and punish
license violators?


It's not just about the experience on OSM's servers, it's about the 
experience wherever the data is encountered.


I think both competent volunteers and any paid roles that take less than 
${ARBITRARY_AMOUNT} of the budget are good investments in keeping the O 
in OSM.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/03/2011 10:13 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:


In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent.


BY-SA is not a permissive or gift economy licence, it is a copyleft 
licence. Its intent is precisely to ensure that the freedom to use the 
work is inalienable.



Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are
free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM.


Except those individuals who would not be free to use the results.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 05:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:


I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and
co-dependency - the question of does the overlaid stuff work without
the map. So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a
certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its
meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your
photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map,
then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I
necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has
something going for it.


Combining image elements (that may or may not embody data) is collage. 
Collage produces derivative works, not collective works:


http://www.google.com/search?q=collage+derivative+work

Individual photos over a map are like individual samples over a backing 
beat (IANAL, TINLA). People haven't had much luck arguing that the 
latter doesn't create a derivative work.



I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have
indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully
CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That*
I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share).


Wikipedia would agree with you. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 05:49 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:


I don't see what print's got to do with it.  Any rendering, whether to
paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; if you take that as the


Where multiple sources of bits are combined to produce a single new 
work, that new work is a derivative of each source.



meaning of modified, then there could be no unmodified renderings of
any database, which means in turn that there could be no collective
works, so the conditions about being separate and independent would be
irrelevant.


Combining multiple elements into a new derivative work is not the same 
as mechanically transforming a single element to produce a new 
derivative work.


It is easy to distinguish them conceptually, legally, and in the licence.


But I don't think that rendered is a sensible meaning of modified in


Combined and printed is, though.


this context, any more than changing the font or line length would be
considered modifying a text.


Modifying font or line length might not change a text but it would 
certainly change the typographic arrangement.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:


I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data
is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent
people from creating works in which not all elements are free.


The intent of the licence is to protect the freedom of individuals to 
use the map.


Any derivative work must therefore be under the same licence.

Making works where all the elements are not free is precisely what this 
is intended to protect against.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:


So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even if the context of the two images is
completely different?


The context of the two images is the single derivative image.


For the avoidance of doubt the base map is a
direct clone of standard osm map rendering so is already available for
reuse. It is only the combined image that is not.


The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the two 
works a derivative of both.



Please refer to the specific examples I have posed above to help direct
the discussion. These include a map of the USA overlaid with crime
statistics, a directions map overlaid with a photograph and a map of the
Isle of White overlaid with some illustrations.


They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single 
image) and are therefore all derivative works.


Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use 
exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works 
would be distributed/publicly exhibited and so cannot be made under the 
same exception.


(IANAL, TINLA)

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/11 20:02, Peter Miller wrote:


I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very


Courts have seen it that way in the case of Shepher Fairey, Jeff Koons, 
Andy Warhol, Richard Prince, The Beastie Boys, and many other artists 
and musicians.



unhelpful view for the project to take.


The ODbL solves this.


The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the
two works a derivative of both.

See above!


I believe that this is the legal reality of combining two works into a 
single derivative work (or of adding new content to a work to produce a 
derivative work) and how this is regarded by the BY-SA licence.



They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single
image) and are therefore all derivative works.

As you will guess by I disagree with this statement as well!


I may be missing some aspect of your argument, and I apologize if I am.

I am however reasonably certain that the examples under discussion are 
not collective works. They are of a different character to the examples 
of collective works that I am aware of.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/11 15:59, Jonathan Harley wrote:


By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is
asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long


Oh I see, I didn't realise that's the wording of the licence.

That's an unfortunate turn of phrase then. :-) I'll suggest it's changed 
for CC 4.0.


2.0 UK states:

Collective Work means the Work in its entirety in unmodified form 
along with a number of other separate and independent works


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode

Flattened layers are not separate or independent.

2.0 unported gives some good examples of what is meant by a collective 
work:


Collective Work means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology 
or encyclopedia


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

The examples are of discrete, spatially separated aggregations of 
separate entities.


Flattened layers are unambiguously derivative works.


as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other
things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that
they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before.


It says precisely that they must be unmodified, separate and independent 
after collection.


Otherwise they are derivative works.


Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so
are an adaptation.



Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of
combination.


The derived work that exists as a result of combining it with the 
underlying tiles makes it an adaptation as per UK BY-SA 2.0 1.c



If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could
argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by
parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data,


I do argue that, and it is the case. But I also argue that it is being 
combined with other material to create a derivative work, rather than 
placed alongside it to make a collective work.


In either case it is an adaptation and therefore a Derivative Work.


which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before
assembly - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work


But the rendering of those points, as a derivative of them, is under BY-SA.


and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license.


If it was a collective work then yes.


ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced
works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on
them, only on the database they came from.


ODbL is explicitly a database copyleft. It does force a licence on the 
producers of produced works, and the attribution is forced on the 
produced works as a way of advertising this.


(IANAL, TINLA).

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

[Rob Myers]

On 21/01/11 00:02, Kai Krueger wrote:


I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't
missrepresent anyone.


I am *very* glad that CC are now publicly acknowledging the harm that 
Science Commons has caused.


I don't know how far CC can go with the 4.0 licences, but Mike's comment 
does appear to represent a major shift in thinking within CC.


It's well worth reading his responses to follow up comments in full.

And I look forward to the post he promises with great interest. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Rob Myers]

On 01/06/2011 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 01/06/11 11:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon,
which is explicitly compatible with ODbL.


They switched today. :)


How can they do that without discussing it for four years in advance?


Also, despite being a British citizen, I didn't get to vote on it.

The switch is great news though. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Rob Myers]

On 01/06/2011 07:14 PM, Mike Collinson wrote:

At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

(Rather coincidentally, this was published today:
http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ )


What a beautifully apt cartoon!


Yes, I wish I'd found it. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006

[Rob Myers]

On 05/01/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:


These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT
(as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn.


Why?

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Rob Myers]

On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


Peter Miller wrote:

I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used
the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with
the new license.


OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.


[citation needed]

(http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?

[Rob Myers]

On 21/12/10 10:51, Andrew Harvey wrote:


I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis
that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled
with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing
imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM


In what way would Bing traced data conflict with BY-SA?

OSM is currently licenced BY-SA. Bing-derived data from OSM editors must 
be contributed to OSM. Bing data will therefore currently be licenced BY-SA.



community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as
vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA
license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so
we can use this as a mapping source.


OSM isn't going to be licenced BY-SA much longer.

While it is, the Bing-derived contributions in OSM will be included with 
the BY-SA version.



If the folks at Microsoft really do have the permissions to and grant
us the permissions to license derived works as we wish, (even under
the condition that they are uploaded to osm.org), they would come on
this list and tell us directly whether we have the permission or not.


What we have is sufficient permission to upload Bing traced data to OSM 
under the CTs. OSM can then licence the data as they have stated they 
will. Which, currently, means under BY-SA.


We do not have permission from Bing to licence the data differently 
anywhere else. And contributions to OSM should be under the CTs.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?

[Rob Myers]

On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote:


What is the German equivalent
of a 'derived work'?  And, if you're saying it's different, then how
can you say it's equivalent?


Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions adaptation rather 
than derived work. Your referring to derived work is therefore the 
use of an equivalent concept in your own legal system.



It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are
protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the
United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same
as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial
photograph is a derivative work.


If there isn't a copyright in the original, work that copies from it 
cannot infringe that copyright because it doesn't exist.


If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part 
of it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent 
concept) it will infringe on that copyright. Tracing in the tracing 
paper sense will certainly do this. It was possible to infringe on 
copyright before digital copying existed...


Now if you're talking about tracing ways from photos I would agree, 
philosophically, that it is a leap to regard those as derivatives. But 
if it's a leap the courts have made or that companies with more lawyers 
than OSM've got have made then that's what we have to deal with.



If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work
(which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of
the image, which is probably not Microsoft.


You need a licence from someone with sufficient rights to grant you that 
licence. Which in this case is Microsoft.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Defining free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 17:27, Simon Ward wrote:

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote:

Why leave it undefined?


To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means
that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-)


Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say “it’s the OKD, stupid!” :)


Sure. If there's a popular call for it then the OKD is excellent. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 18:31, Simon Ward wrote:


Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on
fear).  Do you have any pointers? :)


My argument is neither motivated by fear nor requires fear in order to 
make the point that I believe it does. And I do not believe that the 
general argument in favour of allowing relicencing does either.


I think we both agree that the on-going usefulness of the data is 
important. If we differ on what the likely events that might affect that 
usefulness are then that doesn't mean that either of our arguments are 
emotive rather than rational.



the freedom to relicence is only a small part in the continued
usefulness of the data.


Small, unlikely, but important.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote:

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:

On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:




Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.


Meme.


I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was
explicitly referenced.


I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another
party's definitions. They should be free to find their own.


How do you find the OKD limiting?


I don't.


To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM.  I don’t think it’s
sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything.


You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be 
limited by it?



I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
those actually supporting open data is a very good definition.  OSM


I agree.


doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
dismissing it entirely.


You are wrong in thinking that I am dismissing it entirely.


I’d like a common standard for open data.  If
the OKD isn’t suitable, please feel free to explain why you think that.


If it was a good idea for OSM(F) to use an external definition, choosing 
the OKD would be a no-brainer.


To spell it out: I am a strong supporter of the OKF and I think the OKD 
is excellent. This is an independent issue from whether I think the 
OSM(F) should adopt any external definition of free or open data.



Well, I would be, but in light of what I have
just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the
future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia
bit isn’t necessary in the CTs.


It's not paranoia. It's a recognition that the task has been
necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years
of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years.


May be.


And OSM isn't the only major free/open project that has had to be 
relicenced.



The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be
substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia.


I agree to the upgrade clause in the ODbL. I do not agree to the broad
“free and open licence” of the CTs.


The reason I mention Wikipedia is that it shows that is not sufficient 
to prevent relicencing.



A good example of a very successful project that decided it was
cleverer than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be
licenced under GPL 2.0. This means that software patents, DRM,
Tivoisation, SaaS, internet distribution and other challenges to the
freedom to use software that have emerged since GPL 2 was written
and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 3 still affect the Linux kernel.


I don’t see how that affects this.


You don't see how an actual example of licence lock-in having 
detrimental effects on a project's users is relevant to a discussion of 
licence lock-in?



The kernel developers (rather
Linus) chose to license under GPL v2 only for their own reasons.  The
above issues are completely irrelevant.


Their reasons, whatever they were, have had detrimental consequences for 
future users. The *fact* that this has caused issues is entirely relevant.



I have never proposed that we go with ODbL 1.0 only,  and have always
accepted the upgrade clause as part and parcel of the licence.


That's probably because it is.


Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people
regard that loss of control as immoral in itself.


Opening it even more in the CTs, by that token, is more immoral.  I
wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral, but I do think it is totally
unnecessary.


I have provided historical examples of project licencing and relicencing 
and I have argued that they show this not to be the case.



But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing
other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up
with the wrong licence once.


Yay, more fear.


Which part of what I wrote there is factually or logically incorrect?

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 12:10, Simon Ward wrote:


You think:

OSM should not be limited by an external definition.

OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting,

You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a
good idea for OSMF to reference it).

I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion,  but I
think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
you feel that OSM would be limited by it.  So I have to ask, is that
correct?


I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that way. 
This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD.



I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is
currently left undefined and open to interpretation.



Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset
that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is
always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open
Source Definition).  In the real world “free software” gets
mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known
to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you
can’t do anything with it).

If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in
a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is
limiting to OSM.


And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is 
needed. ;-)



If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating
around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big
loopholes in the terms may be true.  I agree to the CTs even less so
than I did previously.


Fear, uncertainty and what?


If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I
wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and
it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different
definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do
this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and
in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software
many, if any, favours.


My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* definition 
should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote:


I think it is unnecessary to leave it wide open.


free and open doesn't leave it wide open.


I don’t necessarily want relicensing to be prevented, but I think doing
it should be discouraged.  The Wikipedia relicensing was similarly a big
effort, and they actually sought the clause, which was time‐limited, to
allow them to relicense.  The FSF could have just said “no” (but they
listened to reason, and ultimately Wikipedia was still freely licensed).
It was a big step, and proportionally a lot of thought went into it.  A
lot of thought has gone into applying the ODbL to OSM (sadly not much of
it went to the CTs).  Then we just give OSMF blanket rights, and define
some very open conditions for relicensing, and the sense of proportion
is lost.


Relicencing is, I agree, a drastic move. But we are talking about making 
it possible or not here. And it is something that requires a convincing 
vote to achieve under the CTs.



How widespread is this really?


DRM, SaaS, Software Patents and Tivoisation? Apple, Microsoft and Google 
seem to be doing OK from them.



The types of devices where this has
become a problem also tend to be running Busybox which has a history of
pulling people up for licence violations.  It gives the manufacturers
bad press, and we get to avoid these devices for the free software
friendly competition (ok, so there wasn’t much competition in the TiVo
space at the time).  We got new licences to choose from that countered
“Tivoisation” and software as a service issues.  Let’s not also forget


We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move to them.


the large projects, most notably Apache, that use even more permissive
licences (the old GPL vs BSD arguments, oh the flames).


Let's also not forget that Apache's corporate-friendly permissive 
licencing is the reason Google have been taken to court by Oracle.



I do not think arguing by counter example is sufficient proof here.
Those historical examples were special cases in their own rights, and a


They are examples of large projects. That they had their own specific 
reasons for relicencing underlines the fact that relicencing is a 
general problem rather than one that only problem or opportunity X can 
lead to.



large number of projects have also survived without the need to ever
relicense.


Smaller projects, yes.


I didn’t say it what you wrote was incorrect.  I implied that you were
using the current “wrong” licence choice as a reason for leaving it wide
open because of the fear that it will happen again.


And I implied that calling an argument that presents its case based on 
evidence and argument fear was a rhetorical move rather than any kind 
of refutation of the argument.



I’m not after the freedom to relicense here, I’m after the freedom for
the data to be useful.  I don’t believe the freedom to relicense plays a
large part in the continued usefulness of the data, the licence itself
helps more with that, and if it doesn’t, why are we moving to it again?


And why didn't OSM just use it to start with??/

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 13:14, Simon Ward wrote:


So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred


I would certainly hope not.


I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again:



Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use,
analyse, modify, and redistribute?


Presumably.


If the answer is “no”, what does it mean?

If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition
satisfy the OKD?


I would certainly hope so.


In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”?


It doesn't. Using it as a normative document will set and limit the 
terms of debate where it is referred to. This may be a good thing, it 
may not, but it is how it will work.



Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”?  Where is it lacking?


I believe that it does.

It's based on the DFSG, but nobody's perfect.


I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my
eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science
Commons protocal for open access too?  Anything else?


Heck, no.


I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like
you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me
take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet:

Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free
software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect?


I am wearily familiar with the concept.


The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses.

I will also add:  When defining free software we refer to the free
software definition.  It does not limit or harm software that is
intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?)


I certainly refer to the FSD.


Now you’re getting it! :)


I've the feeling I am. ;-)


Why leave it undefined?


To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that 
if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-)


To avoid *another* dependency on another project.

To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and AGPL 
opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is 
discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r.


To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by 
self-identified time-wasters.



Is this another way of saying we leave it wide
open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in
future?  If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree
with that approach.


I am saying we cannot know what future requirements will be except that 
they may not be the same as present requirements. More detail is not 
always better. The FSD is much less detailed than the DFSG, and in my 
opinion it is by far the clearer and less confusing document.



Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged,
and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves
it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage
at the time.


A vote is not pressing a little button. Not in that sense at least.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:


If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined.


But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet exist.

And we don't know why the change might occur.

So we don't want to tie people's hands.

We do want to explain the principle: which is that the licence should be 
Free.


And the CTs do that.

They empower the people to be able to react to future circumstance in 
more than just a token or piecemeal way.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:


If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a
change.  It should be substantially harder, not necessarily impossible,
and I think that means getting agreement from contributors again.


If Creative Commons (to take the current licence) or ODC (to take the 
next one) suddenly turn evil, are unable to react to changes in the law, 
or produce a licence that you don't like, OSM(F) should be able to react 
to that in more than a token way.



I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was
explicitly referenced.


I don't think the future OSM community should be limited by another 
party's definitions. They should be free to find their own.



Well, I would be, but in light of what I have
just written above, I’m still very much of the opinion that the
future-licence-oh-no-we-don’t-want-to-go-through-this-again-paranoia
bit isn’t necessary in the CTs.


It's not paranoia. It's a recognition that the task has been necessary 
once, has been very difficult even after only a few years of 
contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years.



ODbL has an upgrade clause.  We think it’s going to be suitable for the
data for a while, but if necessary it can evolve.  We had the
opportunity to feed back on the ODbL, and my $deity did we by the
masses, and it is likely we will do for future revisions.  We have a say
in how it can evolve.  The CTs just want to leave it completely open.


The upgrade clause means that another arbitrary licence can be 
substituted anyway. See what happened with the FDL and Wikipedia.


A good example of a very successful project that decided it was cleverer 
than the future is the Linux kernel. It can only be licenced under GPL 
2.0. This means that software patents, DRM, Tivoisation, SaaS, internet 
distribution and other challenges to the freedom to use software that 
have emerged since GPL 2 was written and are addressed in GPL 3 and AGPL 
3 still affect the Linux kernel.


Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard 
that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the 
control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in 
the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Rob Myers]

On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:

Rob Myers schrieb:

Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide
sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.


WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand?


I do apologize. The formatting in the email I used made it appear that 
was a quote from Anthony. I also apologize to Anthony.


Fortunately I never make that kind of mistake when reading anything 
else. ;-)


- Rob.

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