[OSM-ja] [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[S.Higashi]

東です。

ライセンス切替の件、１点だけ補足（というか私見）です。

Contributer terms[1]の1番目の条項に書かれているのですが
ユーザ自身がそのコンテンツ（マップデータ）の著作権者である場合にのみ
この投稿規約によるライセンス切替の意思表明は有効です。

以前ikiyaさんが話題にされていましたが
バルクインポート[2]やアームチェアマッピングで作成されたデータについては
別途そのデータ入手先[3]からODbLに切り替えることについての許可を
取り直す必要があります。（日本国内では主に国土地理院関連）

よって、（自分が著作権者でないデータの）バルクインポートや画像トレースを
やったことのある人は、現時点ではまだ意思表明しない方が混乱が少ない
のではないかと思います。

とはいえ、仮にすでに意思表明済みの方がおられたとしても

1)ライセンス切替はまだ確定してるわけではない
2)仮にライセンス切替が確定し、かつ新ライセンスの下での提供を断られたデータについては
削除することになるが、その場合にはsourceタグなどを元に何らかのバッチ的な手法で
データを操作する必要がある（当然、現時点でそんな準備はできていない）

という2点より、急ぎどうこうせずに、ひとまず今後の動きを注視しておけば宜しいのでは
ないかと思います。

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Bulk_Import_Support_Page
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue

> 東です。
>
> ライセンス切替のフェーズ2[1]が始まりました。
> 従来のフェーズ1(新規ユーザ向け)から1歩進んで、既存ユーザに対する
> 投稿規約(CT:Contributor terms)として、自発的な意思表示を求めようとするものです。
> 現時点で自発的にCC-BY-SAからODbLへのライセンス切替を承諾する人は
> 投稿規約ページ[2]で「同意する」を選択します。
> オプションとしてパブリックドメイン宣言できますが、その説明ページ
> の日本語訳はこちら[3]です。
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#.E3.83.95.E3.82.A7.E3.83.BC.E3.82.BA_2_-_.E6.97.A2.E5.AD.98.E6.8A.95.E7.A8.BF.E8.80.85.E3.81.AE.E8.87.AA.E7.99.BA.E7.9A.84.E3.81.AA.E5.86.8D.E3.83.A9.E3.82.A4.E3.82.BB.E3.83.B3.E3.82.B9_.282010.2F8.2F10_.E9.96.8B.E5.A7.8B.29
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
> [3]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Why_would_I_want_my_contributions_to_be_public_domain
>
>
> 以下は私見まじりの余談です。
> [OSM-talk]のリストを購読している方はお分かりと思いますがライセンス切替に対して
> ここにきてかなりの異論が出ています。
>
> また、ライセンス切替が根底にあってか、どこまでも平行線の
> 私のような非englishネイティブにはとても追いかけきれない議論が
> 延々と続くことが増えており、
> メーリングリストへの投稿マナー[4]を制定し
> 明白な違反者をモデレータにより一時的にML投稿禁止にしよう
> という意見まで出ています。
> コミュニティの運営に関わる問題と思われますので
> 可能な方は[OSM-talk]をフォローしてみた方が良いかもしれません。
>
> [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mike Collinson <mike ＠ ayeltd.biz>
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:18:54 +0200
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins
> To: OpenStreetMap Talk <talk ＠ openstreetmap.org>
>
> As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License
> Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary
> Re-licensing  [1]  has begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of
> the new Contributor Terms for your existing OSM API account.  To
> accept the terms visit http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may
> be asked to login first), or your user settings page.
>
> Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any
> published data at this point.  Existing contributors are being asked
> to permit re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense
> to do so.
>
> There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet.  Existing
> Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the
> terms and get on with mapping.
>
> We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see
> the progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.
>
> We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL
> for each of your user accounts if you have more than one.
>
>
>
> ** Why are we doing it like this? **
>
>
> What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that
> simply want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything
> daft, can sign up.    Those that are worried about data loss and that
> the OSMF will make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  We'll show
> how much of the database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got
> some help on modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly
> update if not daily. We'll also make all the data available needed to
> calculate that, so if you want to try a different metric or just see
> what is happening in your local area, everything will be transparent.
>
> If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
> Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution,
> Share-Alike license written especially for databases.  If you are a
> Public Domain license supporter, we are divided as a community on
> which is best and I do urge you to give this one a good try.  The
> Contributor Terms are expressly written to allow us to come back in
> future years and see what is best  without all this fuss about
> procedure.  And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away
> and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.
>
>
>
> ** Some supporting notes:  **
>
>
> () The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
> contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.
>
> () I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place
> so that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really
> don't want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and
> divide.  I pledge to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.
>
> () The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the
> license if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal
> statement to that effect and are attempting to define better what
> "unreasonable" means. A totally quantitative criteria is extremely
> difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what specific problems
> may arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted to do
> something wild.
>
> () The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a
> similar statement.
>
> () We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a
> regular basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how
> much not.  We will make all the data needed to do that public so that
> anyone can analyse using their own metrics. Work on this is active and
> being discussed on the dev mailing list. You will need:
>
> - An ordinary planet dump.
> - Access to history data. A public 18GB "history dump" is available
> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.
>  The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs.
> A full re-generation takes several days.
> - A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work
> in progress.
>
> () A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let
> us see first if "data loss" really is an issue and what the specific
> problems might be.
>
> Regards to all,
> Mike
> License Working Group
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29
>
> [2] The new Contributor Terms:
>
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary  -
> Summary
>
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full
> text and links to translations
>
> [3] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 License
> Working Group minutes, see Item 7
>