[OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk Digest, Vol 53, Issue 5

Wed Jan 5 06:22:02 GMT 2011

Q

----- Original Message -----
From: legal-talk-request at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-request at openstreetmap.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 06:26 PM
To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: legal-talk Digest, Vol 53, Issue 5

Send legal-talk mailing list submissions to
	legal-talk at openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	legal-talk-request at openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	legal-talk-owner at openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of legal-talk digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (John Smith)
   2. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (Frederik Ramm)
   3. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (Anthony)
   4. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (John Smith)
   5. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (Tobias Knerr)
   6. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (John Smith)
   7. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (Richard Fairhurst)
   8. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (John Smith)
   9. Re: CTs and the 1 April deadline (Peter Miller)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 02:05:04 +1000
From: John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTi=yjFMrLGWrSNUG7L-FzA=VRzK6Tg6Pw68obaGn at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5 January 2011 01:54, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For
> example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe the
> would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on the Wiki
> any more etc.etc.)

Either way you look at it, someone contributing crap would be
eligible, while someone contributing reasonable content to the wiki
would be excluded. How is that reasonable?

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:08:35 +0100
From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID: <4D234603.7030506 at remote.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Hi,

On 01/04/11 17:02, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 January 2011 01:48, Frederik Ramm<frederik at remote.org>  wrote:
>> No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must have
>> the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they should not
>> participate in the first place.
>
> Ummm where is the majority of OSM contributors that want to switch to
> CT/ODBL and in the process loose lots of map data?
>
> So far I've only seen a minor-majority of OSM-F members agreed to some
> kind of process that might lead to a license change, and a majority of
> OSM-F board members agree to a license change.

Luckily we're now all signing up to the CT which will, for the first 
time, establish a well-defined path for any future license change, so 
the situation you complain about will be the last of its kind.

Bye
Frederik

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:11:51 -0500
From: Anthony <osm at inbox.org>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTim_do8v3DTBnAe=z=-J-Da_=NVk0eAgiG0-mjwo at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> The *main* reason for the active-contributor definition is that we need to
>> exclude those who are dead, unreachable, or have lost interest, from the
>> decision-making process.
>
> Those people aren't going to respond within three weeks to an email, are they?

Maybe they'll respond with an autoresponder, which just goes to show
why the active contributor definition was poorly drafted, but
presumably "respond" is going to be defined as clicking on some sort
of link somewhere, and not merely replying to the email.

It seems to me very accidental the way the active contributor
definition and the 2/3 majority interpretation combine.  Why not just
define active contributors as active contributors, say that you have
to attempt to send them an email at their last known email address and
give them at least 3 weeks from the time the email is sent to vote,
and then make the threshold 2/3 majority of voting active
contributrors?

Or better yet, drop the "active" from the "active contributors", and
make inactive contributors eligible to vote as well.  They still won't
be counted towards the 2/3 requirement unless they actually show up
and vote, which is a good indicator that they're not dead,
unreachable, or have lost interest.

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 02:15:30 +1000
From: John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTikH=DWfrABERM2FgbyBxuAMGPEgoBkj28cUOUDa at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5 January 2011 02:08, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/04/11 17:02, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 5 January 2011 01:48, Frederik Ramm<frederik at remote.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must
>>> have
>>> the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they should
>>> not
>>> participate in the first place.
>>
>> Ummm where is the majority of OSM contributors that want to switch to
>> CT/ODBL and in the process loose lots of map data?
>>
>> So far I've only seen a minor-majority of OSM-F members agreed to some
>> kind of process that might lead to a license change, and a majority of
>> OSM-F board members agree to a license change.
>
> Luckily we're now all signing up to the CT which will, for the first time,
> establish a well-defined path for any future license change, so the
> situation you complain about will be the last of its kind.

So you agree there is no current statement from the majority of
contributors as to what they want, just what a small minority are
forcing through regardless of the consequences or wishes of others?

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:16:58 +0100
From: Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID: <4D2347FA.6080607 at tobias-knerr.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Anthony wrote:
> Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
> terms.

It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the
Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data
ownership.

The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building
a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to
each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between
"my data", "your data" and "their data".
As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective,
not individual, decisions.

I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or
edited that hasn't been edited by others as well. And with the
increasing density of contributors, this effect will become even more
evident.

Working together like this means relying on others' contributions still
being there tomorrow, even if we change the license again. Therefore, I
could not support a regulation as requested by you, where an individual
mapper could pull out their contributions (and thus remove the
foundation for others' contributions) in the event of a license change.

Tobias

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 02:20:48 +1000
From: John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTincriPdDotFJJOoYPUzTdMS3Ri-vA5LDb5ekK-s at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5 January 2011 02:16, Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
> I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
> reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or

That's not the impression I get, take this comment for example:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-December/007385.html

The only difference between Anthony and others is the scale of what
they might think as their's it seems to me...

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:22:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID: <1294158134619-5889244.post at n2.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

John Smith wrote:
> That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
> if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements

They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

> and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses

It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889244.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 02:25:12 +1000
From: John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTi=mw=DesKj2jQ0X_AcJkej=ZQRA+8CZ9PxKAHF4 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5 January 2011 02:22, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
>
> John Smith wrote:
>> That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
>> if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements
>
> They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

So statements by some people that tiles could be supplied as PD is false then?

>> and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses
>
> It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
> rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

That fails to address my point about being able to follow a chain back
to any attribution.

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:26:18 +0000
From: Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTik_pMz4f1kfwXzco-2CM1mv+=p=kPTrCcLOweCV at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:

>
> Rob Myers wrote:
> > On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> >> OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
> >> Terms.
> > [citation needed]
> > (http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)
>
> :)
>
> I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.
>
> == ODbL ==
>
> The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be
> maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of
> ODbL 4.3 is that "reasonably calculated" imposes a downstream attribution
> requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your
> Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources,
> you haven't reasonably calculated that any person "exposed to" it will be
> aware of the database and the licence.)
>
> As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
> this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
> (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. "If it is not practical to
> cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
> practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
> another
> file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.")
>
> Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an
> ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the
> attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a
> substantial amount of OS OpenData.
>
> == Contributor Terms ==
>
> AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2
> revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb&pli=1). The
> CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good
> suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough.
>
> The Rights Granted section (2) now begins "Subject to Section 3 and 4
> below". The "and 4" is new (added at my request).
>
> Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
> So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
> licence doesn't give you.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>

Thank you for the details Richard. However... on this one I have decided to
stay out of any legal discussions and just wait for a clear statement
directly from the licensing group. To date I haven't had that clarification
and private discussions with a member of the group seems to indicate that
the OS would need to adopt Open Government License for it to work and I can
find no statement on the web to say that they are doing that..

As soon as I have confirmation from the license working group then I will
accept the CTs and will then concentrate on getting the foundation to sort
out its Articles of Association.

Regards,

Peter

>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
> Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110104/a6dee22c/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

End of legal-talk Digest, Vol 53, Issue 5
*****************************************