[OSM-legal-talk] License License License

Mon Oct 13 03:42:59 BST 2008

> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 13 October 2008 00:14
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Peter Miller wrote:
> > Mike uploaded the draft licence to the foundation website yesterday
> > http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/the-openstreetmap-license/
> 
> Good. I will translate this into German to generate some interest on
> talk-de. I'm not exactly looking forward to having to act as the first
> port of call for anyone who doesn't like something but I can always say
> it is THEIR fault.
>

No, please don't do that yet! To be clear this is an old draft licence which
of course does not take into account any of the changes that we have
discussed in the past few days, or indeed for the past months.

I understand from Steve that the Brief and Use Cases we have been drafting
will be used as part of the input to this process (with no promises about if
the points can be included though) so let's concentrate on getting these
right first.

If you translate anything into German then can you translate the Brief that
we have been talking about on this list?

FYI, I have made some changes to the Brief in the past 24 hours to reflect
various comments and have also numbered the paragraphs. Check the main ones
out here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Open_Data_License&diff=164485&
oldid=164154

In particular I have:

1) Clarified the difference between automatic processing of the Dataset
(which is not a Derivate Database) and adding additional information (which
does).

2) I have introduced the concept of a 'competent person' in the definition
of how any Derivative Database should be distributed to help define what is
a suitable format and what is not.

3) Added more words on Collective Databases.

4) Clarified the differential database option.

The main issue I personally still have with the current draft of the brief
is around Collective Datasets (which may contain the whole of OSM dataset or
a very large part of it together with random other stuff). Personally I
think the logic of what we want to achieve is that any Collective Dataset
that is to be released must be released under this licence (or similar
licence). If not then we don't have control over any subsequent changes to
the OSM part of the content. It is not however a requirement to release the
Collective Dataset at all (which may be impossible if it contains other data
on incompatible licence such as full copyright).

Regards,

Peter

> I think there are some points arising from the last days of discussion
> that are not (yet) covered by the license (most importantly the lack of
> distinction between public and restricted distribution and also the
> question of what happens if you take a substantial extract but make an
> insubstantial change e.g. osm2pgsql) but I will first focus on the
> smaller details that spring to (my) mind on reading this draft. (Bear in
> mind I'm not a native speaker so might interpret some things differently.)
> 

> 1.0 Capitalised words
> 
> This defines "Extraction" and "Re-Utilisation" as terms that only apply
> to a "all or a Substantial part of the data", rendering all later
> occurrences of the term "Extraction of all or a Substantial part..."
> useless and making "Extraction of Re-Utilisation of insubstantial parts"
> (as discussed e.g. in the paragraphs on "Substantial") impossible. - The
> word "Substantial" must be dropped from the definition of "Extraction"
> and "Re-Utilisation" to make sense.
> 
> 2.2 b Database Rights
> 
> "Database rights can also apply when the Data is removed from the
> Database and is selected..." - "removing data from a database" to me
> means deletion and this makes the sentence funny. Should this perhaps
> read "Data is extracted..."?
> 
> 2.3 Rights not covered
> 
> This says that the license does not cover patents or trademarks. Which
> is good because otherwise it would be much longer. However, to avoid
> misunderstandings, I think that the specific OSM license we will later
> use should have some extra text saying that by uploading to OSM you say
> that you are not aware of any patent applying to what you're uploading.
> Otherwise someone could maliciously upload a complex construct that
> somehow falls under a patent and "poison" our database with it - or am I
> too cautious here?
> 
> 3.1 Grant of rights
> 
> "... for the duration of any applicable Copyright and Database rights".
> In many other places in the license, care is taken to always talk of
> "Copyright and neighouring rights, and Database right". Why the omission
> of the "neighbouring" here - purpose? Plus, I'd like an annotation here
> that says: "The license only extends for the duration of the applicable
>   rights because after that the data base can be used without a license
> anyway" - which is obvious, legally, but might not be obvious to anyone
> reading this ("huh, do I have to stop using the data after Copyright has
> expired?").
> 
> 4.2 Notices
> 
> "You must, if you publicly Use ... this Database, any Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database..." - this
> monster shows up elsewhere as well (e.g. top of p5, or in 4.3). I fail
> to understand why this is necessary. If I create a Derivative Database
> or include this database in a Collective Database, then the license is
> automatically inherited by the Derivative Database or the "part of" the
> Collective Database. So it should suffice to say "if you publicly Use
> ... this Database", because for the Derived Database there will be a new
> "instance" of the license for which "this" is the Derived Database. Or
> is this applying too much programming logic to legal things?
> 
> 4.2 b "Keep intact any copyright or Database right notices..." - this is
> the attribution chain, correct? Could it perhaps then read "4.2 b
> Attribution: Keep intact..." to make this clearer to people who know
> existing licenses?
> 
> 4.3 and 4.5 b, "mash-ups". "integrated expericences". What is the
> difference between 4.3 and 4.5 b? Is 4.5 b just a re-iteration of 4.3?
> Both sections talk of producing a "Substantial" extract (and explictily
> omit the "all data or a Substantial extract" wording found elsewhere),
> and both talk of combining this extract with information from one or
> more sources to form an "integrated experience".
> 
> What if I take the planet file, print it onto A4 sheets of paper and
> plaster it somewhere as an art installation? I have used ALL data (not
> only a "Substantial part", unless the term "Substantial part" is meant
> to apply to all data as well in which case all occurrences of "all Data
> or a Substantial part" in the document should be changed!), and I have
> not combined it with anything from another source - but I have still
> created an integrated experience, haven't I?
> 
> Why the wording "... (via a search or query)" - who cares *how* I have
> extracted data? If I randomly extract 1000 records, do these sections
> then not apply?
> 
> The whole "integrated experience" thing *needs* to be clarified with
> examples if the license is to be understood by anyone. Since the example
> with a database containing images has been used elsewhere in the
> document, I propose:
> 
> "Example: For a database containing images, a typical 'integrated
> experience' might be a web page that lets you search for individual
> images, download, process, or rate them, or a video clip where one
> selected image is morphed into another."
> 
> I don't even know if this example is good. I would be better at
> providing OSM examples ;-)
> 
> 4.3 a This section is called "Example notice", but then proceeds to set
> up further requirements. 4.3 only talks of a "notice reasonably
> calculacted", but 4.3 a suddenly makes demands about hyperlinks and
> URLs. It must be clarified which of these is just an example how to
> satisfy the requirement, and which of these is actually part of the
> requirement.
> 
> 4.4 a ii/iii allow licensing under a later version of this license or a
> compatible license. Which body has the right to say whether something is
> a later version of the ODbL or compatible with it? I believe that we do
> need such a clause so we can update the license in the future but I can
> already hear the hawks.
> 
> Why the clause "if you license under (iii) you must comply with the
> terms of that license" - does that somehow mean that if I chose (i) or
> (ii) I don't have to comply?
> 
> 4.5 c should be updated to include GPL3-alike wording (giving stuff to
> contractors etc.)
> 
> 4.7 Technological measures... - contains references to 4.6b and 4.6a,
> which should be 4.7b and 4.7a respectively.
> 
> 
> I can already see that we need a larg-ish translation document that
> connects the ODbL and the OSM world, giving OSM specific examples for
> everything.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk