150
edits
Licence and Legal FAQ/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No: Difference between revisions
Licence and Legal FAQ/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No (view source)
Revision as of 21:26, 6 December 2010
, 13 years agoFix OSM links.
(Initial page copy from OSM. Still needs links fixed.) |
(Fix OSM links.) |
||
|
This page provided a place for people to state their case about '''Why You Should Vote No''' to the proposed license change. It provides a good starting point for reading about objections to this license change and why.
Do also read discussion about these points on the [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No|talk page]] and also the article on [[OSM:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes|Why You Should Vote Yes]].
A summary of these points was put to the LWG. A [[OSM:Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL|partial response]] was made.--[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
==Important==
=== Cannot import CC BY-SA licensed external data sets ===
{{main|Cannot import CC BY-SA licensed data}}
Two people have expressed concern about the possible loss of data which has come from CC-BY-SA sources. These are both quoted in this section and a [[OSM:Cannot import CC BY-SA licensed data|page]] has been created to explore the issue in more detail.
"I am very concerned at the loss of data which will occur in some areas - particularly in Australia - when data which cannot be relicensed is removed. We have imported large amounts of data from government sources, which are on CC-by-SA licence. This has allowed us to put data on the map which has otherwise been impossible to do with a small number of mappers and a huge area to cover.
I believe that there is a critical mass of data which is licensed CC-by-SA in the database and that the wholesale removal of this data noted in "Stage 4 - Remove all data from those who do not respond or respond negatively (the hard bit)" is going to either kill OSM in some areas or result in the project forking.
-- [[OSM:User:Drlizau|Drlizau]] 11:03, 5 December 2009
"If we change to ODbL with the proposed Contributor Terms, we will no longer be able to import CC-BY or CC-BY-SA data without the copyright holders agreeing to those terms. The proposed benefit of ODbL, that derived databases will have to be made available, will be rendered useless as we won't be able to use the derived databases in OSM unless they agree to the terms, and anyone doing that will likely have released the data under CC-BY-SA.
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Doctau]] - 12:28, 5 December 2009
Click for a [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Cannot_import_CC_BY-SA_licensed_data|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.
=== OSM's Contributor Terms are not compatible with ODbL ===
Only X who is the copyright owner of the derived database can agree to the contributor terms. Y is not the owner and cannot grant "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright" to the data.
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:08, 5 December 2009
Click for a [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#OSM.27s_Contributor_Terms_are_not_compatible_with_ODbL|discussion of this point]] which is '''not disputed'''.
=== The OSM Foundation will have unlimited rights to all your data ===
It would be relatively easy for a large organisation to take over OSMF and make enought contributions to influence such a vote. It's not likely to happen in the near future but as the value of OSM's data grows the Foundation could become a very tempting target. There are insufficient safeguards in place.
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:08, 5 December 2009
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#The_OSM_Foundation_will_have_unlimited_rights_to_all_your_data|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.
=== The current license is not broken ===
The proponents of ODbL argue that the current license is not suitable for data. This rests on the premise that your contributions are just facts with no creative effort and facts are not protected by normal copyright. While this is a matter for the courts it is far from proven that contributions are not protected by copyright.
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#The_current_license_is_not_broken|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.
=== Even if the current licence is less strong than it could be, there is no evidence it causes any problem in practice ===
The license appears to be working extremely well in practice and so does the whole project.
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:19, 5 December 2009
: To elaborate: Suppose someone derives data from OSM CC-BY-SA and then claims full ownership of the derived data. He/she would want to be able to defend his ownership, including when his/her clients discovers that his data is derived from OSM. Suing his/her clients will not only be very expensive, it will also damage his/her brand. Furthermore, the news will motivate the OSM community to look for legal ways of obtaining equivalent data. -- [[OSM:User:Nic|Nic]] 17:03, 28 August 2010 (BST)
=== ODbL is unproven ===
The value of OSM's data is too high to risk to a brand new untested license.
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:19, 5 December 2009
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#ODbL_is_unproven|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.
=== Even if the new licence is better, the cost of switching is too high ===
If any contributor doesn't agree to the new licence, their contributions (and work derived from those) will be deleted from the database. The exact number of people affected is a matter for debate, but certainly there will be some. The purported benefits from moving to a new licence do not outweigh even a 5% loss of contributors to the project. People, not data or licences, are OSM's most important resource.
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Ed Avis]] 12:30, 7 December 2009
: [http://opengeodata.org/300000-osm-contributors-and-counting 300.000 contributors] verus about 150 votes
I know people call for the big license debate to be resolved quickly
(and I second that) but we can't fall at the implementation stage. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Impact_on_Transitioning_to_ODbL_If_Significant_Minority_.22No.22_Vote|discussion of this point]].
==== Fundamental flaw in voting: How to treat non voters? ====
Many of the contributers will have left OSM for various reasons (death, health, change of interests) and will not participate in the vote. This will most likely be the majority. I cannot imagine that a license change can be accomplished by majority vote for the non voting people! How should that work?
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Katzlbt]] 08:24, 16 July 2010
Click for
[[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Fundamental flaw in voting: How to treat non voters|discussion of this point]]
==== Fundamental imbalance in voting: New contributors, forced to accept ODbL will eventually outnumber CC-BY-SA contributors. ====
One of the most despicable things about the whole changeover process is that new users are not informed about the licensing controversy, but are instead forced to accept either the ODbL or PD. While I heartily approve of PD being offered, this change means that eventually as new users cycle in, '''there will be an automatic majority of users who have been forced into the new "all your contribs are belong to us" contributor terms!!!'''
If we extend this "voting" style to its logical conclusion, then there's nothing to prevent someone from using straw accounts to force the project into relinquishing control to a For-Profit company or a Closed Source license. It sounds to me like someone at OSMF is using the examples of Iran and other third-world countries' "open" elections to stage this one. --[[OSM:User:DiverCTH|DiverCTH]] 22:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Click for
[[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Fundamental imbalance in voting: New contributors, forced to accept ODbL will eventually outnumber CC-BY-SA contributors|discussion of this point]]
=== ODbL licensed data can be reverse engineered ===
This is a complex area that has not been tested in the courts, but either you won't be able to publish your map under CC BY-SA or you'll be able to steal all of OSM's data by tracing it from a map. Both outcomes are bad.
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:80n]] 19:47, 5 December 2009
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#ODbL_licensed_data_can_be_reverse_engineered|discussion of this point]] which is '''is disputed'''.
=== Who owns OSM? You! ===
''This statement was translated into English by [[OSM:User:Frederik Ramm|Frederik Ramm]]. This does in no way mean that he agrees with the statement.''
Es geht moralisch nicht zusammen, dass OSMF die Lizenz ändert, ohne die Contributors zu befragen. Das passt weder mit "Who owns OSM ? You!", noch mit "supporting but not controlling the project" zusammen,
:''Best regards, Gerhard Ditsch''
-- Comment added by [[OSM:User:Gerhard]] 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Who_owns_OSM.3F_You.21|discussion of this point]].
=== Contributor Terms can be changed ===
The Contributor Terms agreement does not contain sufficient safeguards to protect OSM's data.
[[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Contributor_Terms_can_be_changed|discussion of this point]].
=== Incomplete History for Split Ways ===
This makes the new license proposals simply unworkable.
[[OSM:User:80n|80n]] 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Incomplete_History_for_Split_Ways|discussion of this point]].
=== All Share-alike Licences Create Ambiguity ===
The license with the lowest ambiguity is public domain-like or CC0 or similar. This should be an alternative on all future votes. This is the model used with the US tiger data for example. Of course this option has disadvantages: many users would only contribute with share alike terms and many imports are only available as share-alike.
Even if we go down the ODbL route, a "release my contributions as public domain" option should be available on each profile to allow a PD subset export. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Footnote: if the ODbL is adequate, which does OSMF need rights to make amendments to the license?
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#All_Share-alike_Licences_Create_Ambiguity|discussion of this point]].
=== Making Copies of your maps may not be allowed ===
Since ODBL makes it possible to put your rendered map under a restrictive license, you might find that you are not allowed to make a copy of a map that you have created but someone else has rendered. E.g. You collect data and draws a map, this mapdata that must always be copyable, but if someone renders that data to an image then they are allowed to put what ever restrictions they want on it's use. [[OSM:User:Emj|Erik Johansson]] 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The intention of the current CC license is that all derivative work is share alike (the extent that it achieves this is disputed). The ODbL intentionally changes this to allow raster maps to be of any license. This might not be desirable as some people prefer use of their work to be continued to be kept share alike to promote reuse of publications. This would prevent merging of OSM with data sets with less free license terms. I tend to think of those data sets to be inferior due to their terms of use. I therefore don't necessarily want my work being mixed with restrictive mapping data. This is analogous to the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html LGPL vs. GPL] in software licensing with respect to relicensing AFAIK. --[[OSM:User:TimSC|TimSC]] 11:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Making_Copies_of_your_maps_may_not_be_allowed|discussion of this point]].
==== Not all questions answered on the Use Case page ====
I did not find an answer for the question yet, if a single user can still sue a license violator. I don't recommend to vote no, but I want to see all questions answered. --[[OSM:User:Lulu-Ann|Lulu-Ann]] 15:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
=== Principle of least damage ===
* '''best case CC-BY-SA''' - bad companies do not try anything serious (as they didn't in the past) and all companies use CC-BY-SA true to it's spirit: mentioning OSM; so only downside is we wasted some time on exploring alternative licenses
* '''worst case CC-BY-SA''' - Copyright doesn't apply, so all of OSM data is effectively Public Domain (which many people do not have anything against actually, even if it is not their first choice and they prefer copyleft-alike license). Bad companies get to use it for free without giving OSM credit or contributing their additional data back (that might even have a side effect of making OSM even more popular, depending on the circumstances). Alternatively, CC-BY-SA is considered too strong and requiring too unreasonable things (like having to mention all hundreds of thousands of contributors on every use) and while bad guys can't touch it, neither can good companies like TV stations wanting to use maps and attribute them to OSM ''(thanks for update, [[OSM:User:Amm|amm]])''
* '''best case ODbL''' - bad companies do not try anything, and we are (due to good licence) more sure that they stays that way, but we lose some data and some contributors because they do not agree with new license (or are not reachable). That is unavoidable even in best case as shown by reaction of some people.
If the problems with bad guys escalate in the future, I will reconsider ODbL advantages against it's disadvantages again; but at this moment I am not convinced that proceeding with the switch is a good idea.
I hate to see several hundred manhours lost by LWG, but I think it would be better than going through with something this dangerous. Even if everybody was pro-ODbL (and they seem not to be), some people simply will not reachable anymore to give their approval of license change, and removing even just their data (and all other data people have built up over it as is needed) is too high a cost. Note that most of this comment would probably be exactly the same if it was the question of switching to CC0 or Public Domain - it is simply too late to change the licensing at this stage of project with so many contributors without much damage. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Principle_of_least_damage|discussion of this point]].
===Staying with CC-BY-SA for now and switching only if it's proven invalid===
# CC-BY-SA is shown invalid for data, and hence all OSM data is actually public domain and free for grabs. In such a case, OSM community can '''in that moment''' decide to go to ODbL, change contributors terms to ODbL, and relicense '''ALL THE DATA''' without getting approval from all contributors (which they can, as it has just been proven by court that that data is unprotected and free for grabs!) under ODbL, without having to delete any data from OSM and damage it that way (which we'd had to do if we were to switch NOW)! Again a very big win when compared to '''switching right now'''. The only downside is that a first "bad guys" will have a free use of OSM data for few months, until it goes stale (and they can't abuse any new data as it is now protected by ODbL).
So I hope I've shown why staying for CC-BY-SA for now is a '''win in any case'''. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Staying_with_CC-BY-SA_for_now_and_switching_only_if_it's_proven_invalid|discussion of this point]].
===Not really Share Alike===
Also, proposed scheme (ODbL + contributor terms) [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000726.html does not allow import] of other ODbL-licensed content into OSM. So it is never Share-Alike license on the import side, and it is not Share-Alike license on the export side since the EvilNavCo can circumvent it easily. That is completely against CC-BY-SA spirit (which we are led to believe the new ODbL+CT would be "almost alike, only better protected").
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Not_really_Share_Alike|discussion of this point]].
===ODbL comments from Creative Commons===
Creative Commons have made an excellent case against using the ODbL at [[OSM:ODbL comments from Creative Commons]]. Most importantly:
*The ODbL Fails to Promote Legal Predictability and Certainty Over Use of Databases
*The ODbL Is Complex and Difficult for Non-Lawyers to Understand and Apply
*The ODbL Imposes Contractual Obligations Even in the Absence of Copyright
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Creative_Commons'_view|discussion of this point]] which is '''disputed'''.
=== Not clear if single contributors will be able to sue license violators ===
There is no functioning process to deal with license violators with the old license, so if nobody cares, what is a change good for? It is not needed.
--[[OSM:User:Lulu-Ann|Lulu-Ann]] 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
=== ODbL data based on CC-BY-SA data ===
Didn't user B create some kind of derivative work of User A's data? Really, what would happen in such a case?
Click for [[OSM:Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#ODbL_data_based_on_CC-BY-SA_data|discussion of this point]].
Außerdem könnte es durch einen juristischen Winkelzug sogar möglich sein, diese Werke mit weiteren Daten (aus anderen Quellen) anzureichern und eine Weitergabe an OSM zu verweigern, solange diese Daten nicht zusammen in einer Datenbank landen.
-- [[OSM:User:Jot|Jot]]
=== using the wrong language ===
Deutsch:
Ich finde die Thematik sehr kompliziert. Das alles in einer fremden Sprache zu durchdenken ist extrem zeitraubend, wenn man immer wieder auf Vocabeln stößt, die man nicht kennt. Ich wünsche mir frei zugängliche Daten und ich möchte natürlich nicht, daß meine Daten gelöscht werden. Da hätte ich mir die ganze Arbeit sparen können. Aber solange ich keine akzeptable Entscheidungsgrundlage finde, sehe ich mich außerstande, irgendein Votum abzugeben. --[[OSM:User:Elmada|elmada]] 10:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
English:
Ich kann mich dem Vorredner nur anschließen und möchte ergänzen: Ich stimme keiner Lizenz zu, die mir nicht auch auf Deutsch formuliert und erklärt wird. Das ist, obwohl ein Großteil der Mapper aus Deutschland kommt, noch immer nicht der Fall. Ich verstehe Deutsch sehr gut, Englisch einigermaßen, Juristendeutsch nur leidlich, Juristenenglisch, darum geht es hier, aber nur zu rudimentär, um einem Lizenzwechsel zustimmen zu können.
:Deutsche Erläuterungen und die deutschen Lizenztexte finden sich hier: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Open_Database_License --[[OSM:User:MapUserOne|MapUserOne]] 12:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
=== commerical interest in licence change ===
Deutsch:
Nachdem, wie ich es bislang verstanden habe, wird cloudmade oder sonstwer in der Lage sein, sich die Renderregeln für diverse Karten schützen zu lassen und den Gebrauch damit zu monetarisieren, selbst wenn die Karten zu 100% nur aus OSM-Daten bestehen. OSM-Karten sind dann nicht weiter im Sinne des Share-Alike kopierbar. Sie sind damit in der Praxis nutzlos. Man könnte es mir also untersagen, meine dem Projekt beigesteuerten Daten in einer Cloudmade-Darstellung zu nutzen, wenn ich Cloudmade dafür nicht Geld bezahle, Ich vermute, genau das ist beabsichtigt: Wie schon beim entsprechenden Google-Projekt ist der Mapper der nützliche Idiot, während andere den Reibbach machen. Es ist die Apple-Masche: sich aus dem KHTML bedienen, sozuagen schmarotzen, aber Linux bei iTunes die kalte Schulter zeigen. --[[OSM:User:Q un go|Q un go]] 07:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
English:
Deutsch:
: Du hast auf alle Fälle recht, daß es hier um Interessen geht, die 99% der Mapper (und User) nicht haben. Ich habe kein Problem mit der aktuellen Lizenz, aber das Projekt leidet unter der undemokratischen Umstellung. --[[OSM:User:Amai|amai]] 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
=== CC-BY-SA argument is a snake oil argument / CC-BY-SA Argument ist Augenwischerei ===
*add your comment here if it is not also in English...
[[OSM:Category:Open Data Licence]]
__NOTOC__
| |||