[Osmf-talk] Fwd: AW: Lizenzverstoß bei Magix Foto auf CD&DVD 9

Matija Nalis mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr
Sun Nov 29 22:43:51 UTC 2009


On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 05:11:39PM +0000, Grant Slater wrote:
> 2009/11/26  <Lulu-Ann at gmx.de>:
> > The law in Germany sais (this is not a lawyer's advice), that any OSM
> > contributor holds the copyright and can send his own lawyer to sue any
> > license violator.

I actually believe that *only* that OSM contributors that hold the
copyright *ON THE PART OF THE MAP USED* can sue the license violator. 
That is the big difference; for example for:
http://www.dr-boese.de/system/cont/karte_openstreetmap_530.gif 
that would probably be just a few (dozen?) OSM contributors, and not *all* 
of them.

> > Don't assume that everyone is good. Anyone will be the first one to sue
> > somebody. Better there's a warning.

That is always the possibility. I hope they would first try to contact
violators with due diligence and resolve matters peacefully instead of
intentionally going to cause bad press for OSM by suing violators "out of
the blue". But, if they choose do the bad press, there is very little that
any of us can do (we can only try to educate and recommend best practices or
whatever, not enforce them).

The issue is, if somebody out there wants to sue no matter what, they will
do it. The fact that someone has put up a Wiki with violator name or if
somebody else did manage to contact and warn violators first (or didn't
because the one who wanted to sue was faster) does not really help much: 
if the OSM contributor did not take effort to try to resolve issue peacefully
and carefully, it WILL be bad press for OSM.

And IMHO, the error for such bad press goes mostly on the shoulders of such
careless OSM contributor who decides to sue out of the blue, *not* on the 
violator itself.
 
> Sure someday OSMF might need to legally threaten someone... But none
> of your cases on
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution even
> remotely justify this in my mind.

I actually do think such a wiki page is very useful, but I do not think
that *any* entry should be added to it *unless* one has made at least few
attempts to contact the violators and they failed to respond in a reasonable
period (say, a month?), or if they responded in unacceptable way.

If however they fix it, or even if they just apologized and answered that
they will fix it in next version (like the violator in this thread seems to
have done), one may ask when that next version would be (expecting a
reasonable timeline, not "oh in about 5-10 years, maybe"), and only put 
them up on wiki if the next version DOES NOT fix the problem (and then 
contact them again about that).

Especially, putting up such "the hall of Shame" *without* any prior effort
to contact the violators (99% of them probably guilty only of ignorance), is
irresponsible and doing bad press for OSM. Please, everyone, don't do that.

It will alienate *all* the adopters of the OSM to be so humiliated without
ANY good reason and without any effort to contact them first. They'll just
go back to using GoogleMaps and never look back to OSM, and keep
recommending to everybody else to do the same.

Which is bad. We (I guess most of us; although I can of course only speak
for myself) don't want that. We actually *want* the OSM to be used.

The fact that I insist on CC-BY-SA alike license is not to stifle the use
of the OSM, but quite the contrary, to gain higher acceptance of it because
more of the people will be exposed to it (and know it)!

IMHO, all entries on that wiki page which do not have affirmative
"Contacted?" field in the table should be removed ASAP, until such time the
violators are contacted and shown (with reasonable suspicion) that they're
violating *on purpose* (instead of by accident).

As a good example of how to work with violators, I would point out for
example FSF vs Cisco: http://www.fsf.org/news/2008-12-cisco-suit

They've peacefully tried to get compliance from Cisco by contacting and
working with them for *5 years* before deciding it's not going to work that
way and to take them to court. 

The 5 year might be a little on the long side (hey, I would've given up
after little less than 2 years probably), but the point is they put some
serious effort in trying to resolve this issue peacefully; and NOT trying to
humiliate Cisco by portraiting them as "filthy scumbag GPL violators" in the
public even without trying to contact them (much less work with them!)

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list