[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
balrogg at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 17:55:22 GMT 2012
On 13 February 2012 18:17, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> Am 13.02.2012 17:44, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>> (I assume you mean CC-By-SA)
>> Simon, I would like to know what your interpretation of the current
>> Contributor Terms version is, I know what LWG's interpretation is from
>> their meeting minutes and it must be different from your
>> interpretation. If by "declared good" you mean declared
>> ODbL-compatible then there's nothing special in Poland because nothing
>> has been declared good. The acceptance of CT, according to LWG (and
>> to my reading of CT 1.2.4) is not such a declaration, it is orthogonal
>> to ODbL compatibility. There's no basis for anyone to assume such a
>> thing, worldwide not only in Poland.
> I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a "current licence terms"
> refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume that it
> refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL + DbCL1.0
> , implying that any imports have to be compatible with both*. I can't put my
> finger on an formal statement by the LWG that would indicate otherwise, can
I can't either, only a rather informal statement. My understandng is
that "current license terms" would be what osm.org/copyright says.
You're right that it would also make sense to look at what point 3.
says in the same document, but it's unobvious enough that it didn't
occur to me or the people I talked to about it.
In any case that's very little for a basis for a legal decision.
>> Secondly as you know CC-By-SA licensed data has been contributed by
>> CT-accepters outside of Poland too and I wouldn't be surprised if it's
>> being contributed today taking advantage of the "current license"
>> still being the CC one. It is not only through (what we call)
> How can it be other than an "import", either a derivative or original work
> covered by CC-by-SA 2.0?
Take the example of NearMap TOS, tracing NearMap (specially aided by
local knowledge) is not something we tend to call an import.
>> Even if it were through imports only, then I can't make out what you
>> mean by "erroneously". First of all the imports in Poland have been
>> documented in the imports catalogue on the wiki, so this was in
>> keeping with the community guidelines as well as the CT. This is not
>> true of the hundreds of local, smaller imports that are happening
>> every day (see the imported streets in Lima, or see the Santa Rosa
>> town in the El Oro canton of Ecuador and the nearby towns, and tell me
>> what their original license was) especially in non-English-speaking
>> countries, where the Contributor Terms is the only "binding" document.
>> The community guidelines are really guidelines of the part of the
>> community contributing to the talk@ list and the English wiki, a tip
>> of an iceberg.
> Naturally due to the nature of the project the amount of control that can be
> exerted over what is actually included in the database is limited, but that
> has absolutely nothing specific to do the the OdBL or the CC-by-SA 2.0 (it
> applies just as much to people importing stuff from commercial data sources
> which are compatible with neither etc.).
Right. Yet I know you can defend a decision based on a license given
to you by someone or a contract you signed with someone, like the CT.
It would be much harder to defend a decision made based on something
that is specifically omitted from that contract (when it exists), and
depends on timing, language background etc. I.e. the wiki and
> And yes I would be all for a zero tolerance stance and a tight regime on
> imports, but alas that is somewhat at odds with the touchy-feely nature of
> the project.
I know you would :) From my observation you're in a small minority
though (obviously not alone)
(BTW I think that a license change should be treated at least as
seriously as an import, i.e. there should be the rule "if you can't do
it 100% correctly then don't do it." In an import a technical or
legal or social difficulty is not an excuse to go on with the import
anyway. In the imports I participated in, this was a rule and it
meant many complex technical problems had to be resolved, new
algorithms written and so on. Lack of time was not an excuse either.
It's sad to see the LWG is not limited by the same rules others are.
Even something ultimately quite easy as detecting splits and merges,
is too difficult to bother with.. that's despite an OSMF member
previously saying "anything that's based on object id persistence is
broken" publicly and not being contested)
More information about the legal-talk