[GSDI Legal Socioecon] LINZ Data upload for OpenStreetMap will go dark on April 1
Tracey P. Lauriault
tlauriau at gmail.com
Wed Jan 26 08:16:13 EST 2011
Thank you! This is really helpful Hamish and thanks for all the clarification.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Hamish <hamish_b at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi, I thought I might comment here and nip any confusion in the
> [if you don't mind I would like to cc my reply back to the OSGeo
> mailing list. I suspect my email to the GSDI list will bounce,
> so feel free to fwd/cc me there as you like.]
> Roger wrote:
>> The point I was after was, does anyone else have experience
>> with circumstances like this, where a data provider permits
>> you to use their data for one purpose - in this case to
>> populate an open source/open data web site - and then you are
>> faced with the situation of what to do when that permission
>> is rescinded or otherwise ends.
> To clarify- with respect to the OpenStreetMap data no permission
> has been rescinded and no right-to-redistribute is ending. Nor
> can it be under the terms of the CC-By-SA license, ever.
> Existing users of the data will still be able to use it as they
> do now, but maybe they'll call it something else.
> To my understanding, any data released using the Creative Commons
> Attribution + Share-Alike (CC-By-SA) license, including that
> which has been donated and uploaded to the OpenStreetMap
> project, remains that in perpetuity. (this only applies to the
> past releases of data of course) The only exception to this is
> if it is later discovered that the donating party did not have
> the right to donate it in the first place, but that's more a
> matter of null & void instead of rescinding permission.
> What is happening is that for a variety of reasons the Open-
> StreetMap Foundation is moving ahead with a process of changing
> their data license from CC-by-SA to something new and slightly
> incompatible called the ODbL. This move is somewhat controversial
> within the greater OSM community, where opinions run all over
> the place, but the 300 voting members of the Foundation have
> voted to continue with the process, and so it goes.
> As ODbL is not fully compatible with CC-by-SA, this change
> requires a relicense by all contributers (copyright holders) if
> those contributions are to be included in the "new" OSM
> database. Anything which is an original or derivative work of a
> non-agreer can not be included in the "new" database, but of
> course remains under the existing license.
> So "removed" may be better stated as "not migrated", but in
> practice the main OSM database and servers will not physically
> move, just get a new badge.
> The data in the existing database with its CC-by-SA license
> (more accurately: a clone of it) may physically move to a new
> server such as fosm.org, but the lineage and right to use &
> redistribute that original data will remain unchanged.
> If it is the case that data was given to OSM under the CC-by-SA
> license with the proviso that it no go beyond OSM, well that's
> fundamentally incompatible with the CC-by-SA license and some
> determination would have to be made what its status was. But as
> far as I know this is not the case or matter at hand.
>> If the users of this data knew that the permission would
>> expire at a certain time, why did they use it in the first
> It won't, and can't.
>> Also, one of the suggested 'answers', in an e-mail that
>> followed the one I forwarded earlier today (see text below),
>> i.e. to take a full copy and keep it somewhere else, is
>> probably (almost certainly?) also illegal.
> No, it is most certainly legal, and exactly as the CC-by-SA
> license intends. Robin's suggestion of fosm.org is completely
> above the board.
> Copyright and License
> OpenStreetMap is open data, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (CC-BY-SA).
> You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt our maps and data, as long as you credit OpenStreetMap and its contributors. If you alter or build upon our maps or data, you may distribute the result only under the same licence. The full legal code explains your rights and responsibilities.
> So the main restrictions are that you a) must give credit the
> source(s), and b) pass on the same rights to anyone you give the
> data to as you were given yourself.
>> Hamish wrote:
>> > > after April 1st all of our hard work would then be
>> > > deleted from the main database.
> note "main" database in above. alternate copies may and do
> already exist.
>> Might be deleted from OSM-F's database, but OSM-F have
>> promised to release a dump prior to removing data, how well
>> they'll keep this promise is another matter.
> In fact you can download the weekly "planet.osm" dump of all
> OpenStreetMap right now from CloudMade, the company set up by
> the OSM founders to provide associated services. Or, anyone can
> connect to the "Xapi" or other interfaces to get a full dump of
> the database, at any time, and it has been that way since day
> one. This is a non-issue. www.fosm.org is keeping a minute-by-
> minute backup of all changes as we speak.
> Tracey wrote:
>> > I am not sure of the context and what this means? Can you
>> > explain in more detail what is going on?
> hopefully the above explains it in grueling detail, since you
> asked. :-)
>> > The Government is pulling the OSM content? Or OSM is pulling
>> > because of the license?
> No, and sort of. OSM is moving to another license, and unless
> the party that donated the data also agrees to the new license it
> can't be part of the new project. But this doesn't mean that the
> old database will die, it will survive as long as there is
> someone motivated enough to support it.
>> > The Gov was sharing OSM data?
> I think "donating data to OSM" is the best way to put it, but
> I've got no idea how the gov'ts of the world will use it.
> In the US federal data is by law public domain, so no problem; in
> Canada NRCan has been highly supportive and have even assigned
> some staff to help out as far as I've heard. In Australia and
> New Zealand the respective geospatial offices and land agencies
> have been enormously friendly and supportive. As I understand it
> the UK has just announced all future data will be released to
> the public under a CC license. The idea being that easy access
> to high quality data means that existing industries can figure
> out how to be more efficient, and new industries can be invented.
> Any losses from not selling the data anymore will be made up 10
> fold in the greater economy by the new uses and saved
> productivity of everyone spending to reinvent the same wheel.
>> > What licenses specifically are the issues and why are
>> > they POO!
> The current license for OSM is the CC-By-SA 2.0, as linked above.
> The /proposed/ license for OSM is the ODbL 1.0:
> Another issue is the new OSM Contributer Terms which are coming
> in at the same time and depart in a number of important ways
> from the past. (So far "the greater community" has collectively
> and effectively "owned" the data. In future the OSM Foundation
> would like to take on that role.) Needless to say, controversial.
> but back to the poo,
> I used such lighthearted language to describe the ODbL in part
> to make it plain that I don't mean that as any sort of formal
> analysis (and is based on a reading of an earlier draft, I'm
> going to have to reread the final one before any formal and
> specific comment), and also to make it obvious that it was just
> a rough opinion and I wasn't making any formal statement under
> any of my roles within the OSGeo Foundation, the NZOpenGIS
> group, the university I work for, etc.
> One of the reasons ODbL got so confusing is that there is a
> strain between wanting to preserve the Open side of the data
> while allowing+making it easy for any and all bus company, phone
> books, small town chamber of commerce, whoever, to use the maps
> without hindrance and for the greater good.
> That sounds brilliant on paper, but the very tricky question on
> the technical/legal side is where does the data end, and how to
> set loose unencumbered derivative works without setting loose
> derivative works of the data as well? (as Illustrator/SVG/PDF/
> PostScript versions of the maps may contain the original data,
> and may arguably be used by EvilCorp as a means to launder the
> Open database into a Closed one; and a 100% close of the database
> is still technically a derivative work if you change just one
> small thing)
> I also see governance trouble with the new contributor
> agreement, but that's an internal OSM matter quite separate
> from the quality of the data licenses.
>> > what is the difference between the PDL and the baddies
>> > in the post?
>> > Governments are looking at user generated content and it
>> > would be good to better understand this situation.
> The good lawyers and technologists at the Creative Commons
> are working on a new 4.0 version of their license suite with
> government data specifically in mind, and are actively seeking
> comments on it:
> It is my hope that this will be the main vehicle for future
> government data releases which are not simply put into the
> public domain, and that from slightly messy beginnings will
> come education and a set of solid international best practices/
> interchangeable/-operable data licenses.
> Roger wrote:
>> Some food for thought on the impact of licensing and open
>> source/creative commons licenses.
> To be honest, the main impact here is very little impact at all-
> the existing data and usage may remain open and usable by all
> users under the current terms despite the controlling
> organization moving in another direction. If this data was not
> licensed with open source/creative commons licenses both the
> community and the users would be plain out of luck and the
> situation would be very different and lot uglier. The danger
> here is one of splintering the community, and the embarrassment/
> unprofessionalism of having to go back to the gov't agency with
> yet another legal document to approve. But these are issues
> strictly to do with internal OSM politics, and nothing
> whatsoever to do with the license itself. The CC-By-SA license
> is our insurance that all will be ok, no matter what happens.
> Folks just want to make sure it is going to stay that way.
> warm regards,
Tracey P. Lauriault
More information about the Legal-Socioecon