> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:00:27 +0000 > From: Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where > we're and are, where we're going > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; > format="flowed" > > (follow-ups to legal-talk, please) > > Peter Miller wrote: > > > There are clearly uncertainties and complications with the current > licence, > > however it does allow for the license to be upgraded without going back > to > > original contributors for permission. > > In OSM's case that's unlikely to be true. > > Copyright in OSM contributions is owned by the original contributors, > not by OSMF. As the CC-BY-SA 2.0 summary says, "A new version of this > license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may > want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically > put under the new license, however." > > Since no works are automatically put under the new licence, every > contributor would have to choose to move to (say) CC-Data-BY-SA just > as they would any other licence. > >
Not true. The licence upgrade clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0 states in clause b: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, *a later version of this License* with the same License Elements as this License"(my emphasis). This allows the OSMF (on anyone else) to distribute OSM data using CC-BY-SA 3.0, 4.0 or whatever I am really concerned that this whole drama is being built on false foundations. > > As such I feel confident that CC could > > come up with a derivative of CC-BY-SA 3.0 that covers our needs and plug > the > > gaps (and those of other gedata/DB type datasets generally); after all, > if > > the ODL can do it then why can't CC do it > > The following background is absolutely crucial. It's in the > OpenGeoData post but I'll take the chance to restate it. I'd encourage > you, Longbow4u and others to reflect on it. > > * The Open Data Commons Database Licence is a share-alike licence with > attribution elements. It is, as you say, "in the spirit of CC-BY-SA". > > * Its authors are working with Creative Commons. > > * Creative Commons has a strong policy that "facts are free"[1]. They > have therefore now introduced a "licence" for factual information, but > this is essentially public domain (CC0/PDDL) with a voluntary request > to share info. We are _not_ recommending that OSM adopts that licence. > The ODC Database Licence is entirely separate. > > > So to specifically answer your point about "if the ODL can do it then > why can't CC do it": > > * CC doesn't believe factual information should be subject to > restrictions, so _won't_ do it. > > * But if CC were to do it (if, for example, they were lobbied to do > so), their existing collaboration with ODC makes it very likely that > they would actually adopt the Open Data Commons Database Licence. > > In other words, this option is significantly _more_ copyleft than CC > themselves propose. > I am not really convinced by your argument on copyright/DB rights. A map is not a factual in the same way that a gazetteer would be or a telephone directory. Other mapping companies using copyright combined with contract. You say that we don't have a contract but the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence says: "TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A *CONTRACT*, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE *IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS*" (my emphasis). So.... we OSMF can distribute under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or above, CC-BY-SA 3.0 (and above) is a contract (to the extent that it can be in law), and this is the very similar to the legal arrangements protecting Navteq's $8billion asset base. If we stick with CC-BY-SA then we don't have to ask permission of our contributors and the risk of any split removed. > > > Btw, where should this debate be happening? Personally I suggest the > legal > > nerdy details are discussed on legal-talk but any discussion about > > principles are discussed on 'talk' > > It's a good point, but in practice legal-talk will work best because > it's very difficult to separate the two, and because discussions will > drift from one to the other. We also don't want to overwhelm the rest > of the project with it! > Fine. Can I suggest that you respond to discussions that leak across onto talk and encourage them back to legal-talk or we will end up having two discussions in parallel. Keep up the good work! Peter > cheers > Richard > > > [1] From their database FAQ: "As you know, Creative Commons and > Science Commons work to promote freely available content and > information. Our preference is that people do not overstate their > copyright or other legal rights. Consequently, we adopt the position > that 'facts are free' and people should be educated so that they are > aware of this." > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
