[OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:51 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2010/1/18 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> > whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a contract
> > that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and say "download
> and
> > use freely" then
>
> Assuming the data isn't copyrightable, the vector + lat/lon
> information may not be, but there is a lot of meta information that
> may be. However I'm guessing Anthony will be the first to breach
> contract, so it's only a matter of time before we have a willing
> candidate :)
>

I never plan to agree to the contract in the first place, so I won't be
breaching it.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> The theory is that the data isn't copyrightable and therefore the
> CC-BY-SA didn't apply in the first place since it is a copyright
> license.
>

Whose theory is that?  It isn't mine.  My theory is that the proposed
contributor terms, which explicitly grant essentially everyone permission to
do essentially everything, is tantamount to a dedication into the public
domain (better, in fact, because it works in some jurisdictions where public
domain dedications aren't permitted).

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Sites that depend on contracts will usually have something in their terms
> and conditions that says "if you're not legally able to enter a contract
> then go away". (We have discussed this and most OSMers would not really like
> to have terms and conditions that basically shut out minors from the
> project. I don't know what will happen.)
>

Yeah, I can't see that happening.

But I think you're missing the fact that sites which try to restrict people
from copying their databases pretty much universally do not provide database
dumps.  A terms and conditions which says "if you're not legally able to
enter a contract then go away" only works if it's combined with a technical
means to catch people trying to systematically download everything (who can
then be charged with computer trespass which is much more severe than a mere
breach of contract, and applies to everyone including minors).

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab at gmail.com>wrote:

> You seem to be forgetting that Google has terms of service for map
> maker: http://www.google.com/mapmaker/mapfiles/s/terms_mapmaker.html
>
> "By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a
> perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
> license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
> perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of
> the User Submission. ...."
>
> OpenStreetMap however does not
>

Not yet, but: "You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your
Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within
the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other."
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

My comments are based on the axiom that OSMF adopts those contributor
terms.  If the switch to ODbL (which includes contributor terms, and I was
told that this 0.9 draft is likely to be equivalent to the 1.0 release as
far as this clause is concerned) does not go through, then everything will
be CC-BY-SA, and the whole PD flagging thing makes more sense.

If someone wants to bring up this proposal again *after* the failure of the
switch to ODbL, fine.  But let's handle one misguided and
not-well-thought-out proposal at once.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100117/fc52138e/attachment.html>