[OSM-talk] License

[Mike Collinson]

We are diametrically opposed on the CC/PD issue :-) but, as I 
understand it, Robert is proposing an explicit grant of rights by me, 
the contributor, to OSM.  How  OSM decides to redistribute the data, 
CC or PD, is up to OSM as a body.

As such, I enthusiastically endorse the proposal.  As I'm 
contributing some data to OSM as a by-product of a project with 
potential commercial value, I would be very reassured with an 
explicit acknowledgement that I can keep on using *my own* 
contributions in any way I like and will keep on 
contributing.  Secondly, in the current chaotic situation, some one 
like me could conceivably announce, say, that they are withdrawing 
any right OSM has to their speed camera contributions.  I'm not sure 
whether they would have good legal grounds to do so, but it could be 
costly and damaging to OSM.  Contributing to OSM should be clearly 
and explicitly a one way process.

The only tweak I would like to the BBC model, is that OSM would also 
be obligated to free public distribution as one of or its only mode 
of publication (I use those words carefully).  I think both CC-ers 
and PD-ers would agree on that? No Gracenoting,  I think was the term 
someone on the list coined.

Mike
Manila


At 04:07 AM 1/02/2007, A Morris wrote:
>I vote for keeping CC.
>
>I'm totally happy with my CC-licensed map data being used in 
>proprietary navigation systems, speed camera warning systems, 
>printed maps sold in shops, websites with adverts, etc, but when 
>said vendor discovers a new speed camera, I want them to be forced 
>to add that speed camera back into OSM.
>
>That simply won't happen if OSM is PD.
>
>
>
>On 1/31/07, Robert (Jamie) Munro 
><<mailto:rjmunro at arjam.net>rjmunro at arjam.net > wrote:
>Lester Caine wrote:
> > Nic Roets wrote:
> >> My 2 cents :
> >>
> >> To me it makes no difference weather I contribute to a CC / GPL
> >> project, or weather I contribute to a PD project with a good
> >> non-profit orginization (NPO) behind it :
> >>
> >> If someone then sells a relicensed version of my PD work, that's fine
> >> because, in the internet era, his clients will be just one or two
> >> websearches away from discovering the true magnitude of his
> >> contribution.
> >
> > If only that was the case :(
> > You obviously have not heard about the current case relating to a
> > company selling reworked PD material as their own work and trying to
> > extract licence fees from the people who actually created it !
> > 
> <http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/index.html>http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/index.html
> > If the company win, then the licence covering such little projects as
> > Perl are not worth the disk space they are stored on.
> >
> > So lets take care that a commercial hijack does not take place here!
>
>That's an interesting case, but it mostly refers to patents, not
>copyright and I don't see how it's relevant here.
>
>Does anyone actually object to what I am proposing? I.e. OSM foundation
>have a statement like this one from BBC News (just change "BBC News" to
>"OSM foundation"):
>
>    In contributing to BBC News you agree to grant us a royalty-free,
>    non-exclusive licence to publish and otherwise use the material
>    in any way that we want, and in any media worldwide.
>
>    [snip stuff about foreign broadcast partners]
>
>    It's important to note, however, that you still own the copyright
>    to everything you contribute to BBC News ...
>
>Also see <http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/>http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ 
>paragraph 9, "Contributions to
><http://bbc.co.uk>bbc.co.uk".
>
>Lots of other websites have similar agreements.
>
>Back to the real issue: Does anyone mind their data being used to derive
>public domain UK postcodes?
>
>I suppose, if we get a download by user feature on OSM, something could
>be added to <http://npemaps.org>npemaps.org that lets users sign up 
>and agree to their OSM
>contribs being mirrored. While this would work, it would be silly.
>
>Robert (Jamie) Munro
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
><mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070201/608a1191/attachment.html>