[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure

Jim Croft jim.croft at gmail.com
Sat Feb 28 01:17:54 GMT 2009


Out of curiosity, would one of the Creative Commons
(http://creativecommons.org/) licenses be able to provide
thefunctionality and the flexibility we might need?

jim

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
>
> Important news from legal-talk
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009
> From: Grant Slater <openstreetmap at firefishy.com>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>
> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
>
> The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and
> supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap's
> expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license
> authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and
> process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data
> Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community
> join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure
> that the license is the best possible license for us.
>
> The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike
> provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far
> more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works
> of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer
> when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered.
>
> The license is now available at
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and you are welcome to
> make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list
> also at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ up until 20th
> March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and
> comments should be made there as part of that process.
>
> Attached below is our proposed adoption plan and the latest will be at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
> . This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on the
> discussion page for the plan:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
> .
> In summary, we'd like to give time for final license comments to be
> absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the
> current version of the new license to the community for adoption and
> then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait
> until the final version before formally reviewing the license.
>
> Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed Use Cases
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases and his
> responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the
> use of the Factual Information License
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ for the individual
> contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation
> covered by the ODbL.
>
> There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on.
> If you would like to help, please give input at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues
>
> For instance: Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license?
> The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives?
> And implementation What Ifs ... for example, what if the license is not
> accepted?
>
> Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group
> looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the
> process.
>
> --------------
> All dates approximate for review.
>
> License Plan
>
> 27th February:
>    *      This draft adoption plan made public to legal and talk list
> with the draft license text made available by the Open Data Commons
> (with facility for comments back) . Local contacts asked to assist in
> passing on the message, and subsequent announcements.
>
> 2nd March:
>    *     Working group meeting. Finalise implementation plan following
> review of plan comments; What If scenario planning.
>
> 12th March:
>    *     Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received
> to date.
>
> 20th March:
>    *    End of ODbL comment period.
>
> 28 March:
>    *    ODbL 1.0 is expected to be released by Open Data Commons at The
> Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) London event.
>
> 31st March:
>    *   OSMF Board endorses licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd
> January)  to vote (1 week) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the
> community for adoption.
>
> What follows is based on a positive response from the OSMF members...
>
> + 1 week:
>    *     Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have
> set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up
> page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People
> who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and
> are emailed a notice.
>    *     Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license.
> Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page
> explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a
> requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop
> people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to
> license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL.
>
> + 2 weeks?
>    * Require people to respond to the licensing question. How? Should
> we deny API access otherwise?
>
> +1 month:
>    *     Working group meeting. Assessment of number of no responses
> and number of people who haven't said either way. Emails ready to send
> to contact those who have not clicked yes or no. Personal outreach to
> those who have said no.
>
> + 2 months??
>    * Final cut-off.  What do we do with the people who have said no or
> not responded?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>



-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499

"Words, as is well known, are the great foes of reality."
- Joseph Conrad, author (1857-1924)

"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said,
but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
 - attributed to Robert McCloskey, US State Department spokesman




More information about the Talk-au mailing list