peter.miller at itoworld.com
Mon Jul 9 09:29:54 BST 2007
Thanks for the background Frederik, however I really don't think it is
acceptable for us to duck this issue and reading the SA2.0 licence agreement
this morning it seems that a perfectly acceptable and robust legal mechanism
is available within the SA2.0 licence agreement allowing OSMF to publish the
Work on behalf of the community and to define an appropriate Attribution
(even if it cannot get agreement from all copyright holders prior to
Firstly: does the community want this problem resolved? My company does
because it wishes to use the data, but does the community wish it? And if
the community does then can it agree on a 'practical' wording for each
publishing scenario and can that 'practical' wording be supported by the
"(cc) OpenStreetMap, some rights reserved"
With both the phrases 'OpenStreetMap' and 'Some Rights reserved' linked to
appropriate places on the OSM website.
"(cc) www.openstreetmap.org some rights reserved"
"(cc) www.openstreetmap.org some rights reserved (CC-BY-SH)"
The OpenStreetMap web site would contain a full list of current copyright
holders who are contributing to the current Planet.osm (real names or
pseudonyms). I believe that this method of publication can be justified as
'reasonable' given the constraints of the medium and the large number of
individual copyright holders.
If this is desired by the community then I propose the following legal
strategy for implementing it:
I note that the Licensor needs to be an 'Individual or Entity' (1f). The
only 'Entity' that comes to mind to publish the whole thing is the OSMF so I
propose that OSMF formally publishes planet.osm as a Collective Work.
OSMF provides License terms (identical CC-BY-SA) for the use and attribution
of this Work (planet.osm) having first used 'reasonable means' to get
agreement from the current active email community to the proposed mechanism
(a combination of a short phrase where OSM data is used and a link back to
the website for full details).
If at the time in the future an individual copyright holder complains about
the arrangement then OSMF will have the choice to either accommodating that
person's wishes or removing that persons Work from the Collective Work 'to
the extent practicable' (4a). In practice this could be interpreted as
meaning removing that individuals Work from future releases of the
Regarding liability, OSMF will receive significant protection from
subsequent litigation from clause 5, however it should probably have some
legal insurance anyway if this is possible. To quote Clause 5 'UNLESS
OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK
AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE
MATERIALS, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT
LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS,
ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE.
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH
EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frederik at remote.org]
> Sent: 08 July 2007 23:39
> To: Peter Miller
> Cc: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attribution
> > Any thoughts on my previous posting (5^th July) re attribution; I really
> > think we need to agree some published guidance on the matter sooner
> > rather than later.
> I think the problem is that we are neither the authors nor the licensors
> of the data so we cannot tell people how to attribute; technically, the
> attribution would have to list all individual contributors, "where
> We could give them sort of a blanket absolution and say "we generally
> consider it impractical to list all individual contributors and we
> suggest you just attribute <text>", but strictly speaking we are not in
> a position to do so unless we solicit the ok from our contributors.
> What we'd have to do in the first place is ask our contributors to
> transfer their right to be identified as a co-author to us (OSM/OSMF).
> Then we could decide what we'd like that attribution to look like and
> then we could tell third parties to use it.
> This is very impractical since it is highly unlikely for us to get the
> ok of every individual contributor. Some may be simply unreachable.
> We can give out a suggestion now, but technically any contributor could
> still request to be identified individually, "where practical", and we
> cannot override that. Worst case, someone could incur financial damage
> by first trusting our suggestion and then having to re-print something
> because of the claims of an individual contributor, and then try to
> reclaim the cost from us...
> It's a jungle out there. (Says a non-lawyer.)
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
More information about the legal-talk