[OSM-legal-talk] where we are, where we're going

[Peter Miller]

> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:00:27 +0000
> From: Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are,	where
> 	we're	and are, where we're going
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <20080109170027.ssvnxkooxkw08gwg at webmail.systemed.net>
> 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."
>