[OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

dieterdreist
Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

Feel free to modify and improve this first draft. I have not yet linked it from any other wiki pages but plan to do so from the imports section of the wiki after some community review.

Cheers,
Martin

For reference, this is the OSMF-talk thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2016-January/003665.html

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 18 January 2016 at 10:53, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
> and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
> compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

This is great to see, and will hopefully become a very useful resource.

Some comments / suggestions:

* In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
person/body who is able to give such permission.

* For the CC-By notes, I think those giving the permission also need
to be aware that they are (or would need to be) also authorising
downstream use of their data, without necessarily getting any direct
attribution from those downstream uses. I'd suggest adding "including
to cover downstream use in works derived from OSM" to the end of the
note.

* It's not clear from the page whether or not the lack of green in the
"contributor terms" column precludes the use of ODbL data or not.
Presumably not, but more consideration should be taken before using
such data, and with documenting them and attributing it in OSM. If
this is correct, then something to this effect should be added in an
explanatory paragraph.

* It would be good to add the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) and
Non-Commercial Government Licence (NCGL) to the list. The first should
be the same as the ODbL (as it explicitly states the ODbLs terms are
sufficient to fulfil the obligations under the licence) while the
second is incompatible due to the NC terms.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

dieterdreist


2016-01-18 16:21 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <[hidden email]>:
Some comments / suggestions:


thank you for your comments.

 
* In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
person/body who is able to give such permission.


done

 

* For the CC-By notes, I think those giving the permission also need
to be aware that they are (or would need to be) also authorising
downstream use of their data, without necessarily getting any direct
attribution from those downstream uses. I'd suggest adding "including
to cover downstream use in works derived from OSM" to the end of the
note.


I have integrated this now, had first tried to put it in the middle but then decided to add it to the end as you suggested (but without the "to cover"), feel free to improve it yourself


* It's not clear from the page whether or not the lack of green in the
"contributor terms" column precludes the use of ODbL data or not.
Presumably not, but more consideration should be taken before using
such data, and with documenting them and attributing it in OSM. If
this is correct, then something to this effect should be added in an
explanatory paragraph.


yes, I agree this could be made more verbose. I agree with your interpretation that it doesn't seem to prevent people from importing this data now, but it clearly puts more obligations on us that will make future license changes harder to perform. Feel free to add some explanatory lines yourself
  

* It would be good to add the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) and
Non-Commercial Government Licence (NCGL) to the list. The first should
be the same as the ODbL (as it explicitly states the ODbLs terms are
sufficient to fulfil the obligations under the licence) while the
second is incompatible due to the NC terms.


can you (or someone else) add these? I am not familiar with them and could only replicate what you have written above.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
dieterdreist wrote:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to
> review and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview
> about the compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:

This is really good. Thanks, Martin.

cheers
Richard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to attribute on the website. Further it could be argued that in reality such permission creates a completely new licence, in any case I think "fixable" might be the wrong term, since every licence is "fixable" by replacing it with something else or explicit permission.

 The other problem with ODbL and CC-BY licences is that they do not allow sub-licensing, not to mention that the ODbL is silent on the form of rights (ownership) in derivative databases (in conventional copyright the creator of a derivative could/would have separate rights to the specific derivative, it is not clear how this is supposed to work in the potential absence of copyright protection in the case of database elements that themselves have no protection).  

And another point: the whole thing needs a gigantic disclaimer at the top pointing out that the determinations are only for unmodified versions of the licences and that (that they are unmodified) needs to be determined by looking at the actual licence text, see the OS version of the OGL and the current upset with the Australian GNAF data (licensed on terms of a modified CC-BY 4.0) for examples of such issues.

Simon


Am 18.01.2016 um 11:53 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

Feel free to modify and improve this first draft. I have not yet linked it from any other wiki pages but plan to do so from the imports section of the wiki after some community review.

Cheers,
Martin

For reference, this is the OSMF-talk thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2016-January/003665.html


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

dieterdreist

2016-01-19 10:38 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <[hidden email]>:
As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to attribute on the website. Further it could be argued that in reality such permission creates a completely new licence, in any case I think "fixable" might be the wrong term, since every licence is "fixable" by replacing it with something else or explicit permission.


yes, I agree that "fixable" might not be the right term, and that adding something to a license makes it a new license. I had thought about this "fixable" and "not fixable" wording but decided to put it as a kind of generalized placeholder and wait what the discussion would come up with. You are right that any license is fixable if replaces by a different one, but if someone has decided to require only attribution it is much more likely they'd be willing to agree on a specific kind of (indirect) attribution rather than someone refusing commercial use would agree on permitting it.
If the cc-by 4.0 is not compatible even by agreeing on a particular kind of attribution, please go ahead and fix the page. I had naively (and admittedly without looking at the details) asumed that an attribution only license would be OK if attribution requirements are fulfilled.
 


 The other problem with ODbL and CC-BY licences is that they do not allow sub-licensing, not to mention that the ODbL is silent on the form of rights (ownership) in derivative databases (in conventional copyright the creator of a derivative could/would have separate rights to the specific derivative, it is not clear how this is supposed to work in the potential absence of copyright protection in the case of database elements that themselves have no protection).  

And another point: the whole thing needs a gigantic disclaimer at the top pointing out that the determinations are only for unmodified versions of the licences and that (that they are unmodified) needs to be determined by looking at the actual licence text, see the OS version of the OGL and the current upset with the Australian GNAF data (licensed on terms of a modified CC-BY 4.0) for examples of such issues.


its a wiki page, please go ahead and fix it. If there are uncertainties and doubt, make some annotations.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk