Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote: Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed? Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added): I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor terms. *There is a very small amount*, but OSMF seems to want to stick as close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a significant change. There are two major contributions to my feelings on this: The minutes, and Mike Collinson’s very welcome update, where he says: “We are not at this point looking to making any major changes to the way the Contributor Terms, but of course cannot completely rule that out.” Ok, I should have said “little chance” instead of “no chance”, but I hope you will forgive me for feeling weary about it all. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being rolled out. I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned since the early days of the CTs that we ended up with after legal consultation¹. Simon ¹Archive trawling scheduled for Sunday -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with the licence change. This is a change that cannot be sugar-coated. It is needed in order to ensure that if future changes become necessary they can be made. I'm sorry to be harsh but I think that concentrating on the risks of the new CTs rather than the risks they are meant to address shows a failure of perspective. I don’t think that’s harsh; I think it’s wrong. ;) I see advantages and disadvantages to the CTs, but I believe the disadvantages currently outweigh the advantages. I don't believe that a stoic or pollyannaish acceptance that the licence of OSM may gradually be rendered ineffective by change outside the project is morally superior to enabling the project to rise to future challenges. I’m also not intending that the CTs become something that allows OSM to be gradually rendered ineffective. From my side of this fake wall you have put up, I am indeed intending that they allow OSM to be effective, and continue to allow OSM to be effective, without over extending grants to a third party. If I could make it happen without even having to have a third party involved, I would. Unfortunately, I think it is also beyond possibility. And if people are worried that future changes will not be to their liking they need to get involved in the process more actively. I’m worried that proposed changes in the very near future aren’t to my liking. Am I not actively involved now? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for the license to be changed completely should be discussed first. Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it. Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 That poll is a bit misleading […] Just a point on that poll: I answered ability to accept ODbl imports is more important because: * The assumption was that “the ability to react to change and relicense is more important” requires a very liberal rights grant. I don’t think this is the case. * When discussing a free licence, I would like to see it interoperable with itself, even if OSM only accepted large imports on a case‐by‐case basis. The wording on that poll is also very biased towards the liberal rights grant, and doesn’t paint each option equally (if anything, giving the import option *more* weight). There were only 34 participants. It wasn’t a very good poll. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map on the Garmin device. Raster map tiles (e.g. SVG) would also be an interesting case. There is so much ambiguity about 'produced works' and 'derived databases' that it would be far better for the licence to state some example cases directly, rather than require clarifications hosted on the OSM wiki pages (!). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 09/04/2010 12:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Frederik Rammfrede...@... writes: If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map on the Garmin device. (A Garmin map might or might not be a map. I suspect it is a map, but it's an interesting case and I recommend asking odc-discuss.) Raster map tiles (e.g. SVG) would also be an interesting case. SVG is a vector file format. A raster map tile would be a PNG. In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something intended to be used visually. There is so much ambiguity about 'produced works' and 'derived databases' that it would be far better for the licence to state some example cases directly, rather than require clarifications hosted on the OSM wiki pages (!). They are novel concepts so good examples will help people to understand them, yes. These should be on the wiki rather than in the licence, though. Licences don't usually get to interpret themselves. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 09/04/2010 01:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/04/2010 12:49 PM, John Smith wrote: On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something intended to be used visually. What about a SVG file of a substantial part of the database, SVG files don't have to be as small as a 256x256px PNG tile, and they could in theory contain all the information the same as a OSM file... odc-discuss Or Simon. :-) would be better able to answer this than I am. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: If you render as a PNG, without additional metadata you are similarly going to have difficulty reverse engineering it (admittedly more difficulty than with vector graphics, which much more closely resemble the geodata). The fact that you actually have to reverse engineer either to get useful geodata out of them suggests they are Produced Works alone. Ironically, for most people it is much easier to reverse engineer a .png than it would be to inport a dataset. Given a dataset in an arbitrary format then it will require a significant effort to analyse and extract data in a form that is useful to OSM. Conversely, it is almost trivial to trace from an image. It is an oft quoted aspect of the ODbL approach that it's the data that OSM is interested in. However, in practice it would seem to me that it is going to be really difficult to reincorporate data that has been combined with an ODbL database. Firstly, the publisher can distribute it in any arbitrary format, removing IDs, modifying tags, etc. There is no incentive for the publisher to make it easy to use. Secondly, the size of the database is likely to be formidable limiting the number of people who might have the resources to deal with it. OSMF could help here by providing hardware resources to anyone who wanted to perform an import, but that's a terrible burden on a project that has better things to do with it's hardware. Thirdly, the publisher can simply refuse to agree to the contributor terms. Finally, the possiblility of tracing the content from a published .png may also be denied as produced works can be published under very restrictive and/or incompatible licenses. I find it hard to imagine that *any* ODbL licensed data will ever get shared back to OSM. If it is so difficult to share back data then I think that will be a serious demotivator for many contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 5 September 2010 00:00, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: I find it hard to imagine that *any* ODbL licensed data will ever get shared back to OSM. If it is so difficult to share back data then I think that will be a serious demotivator for many contributors. Unless the CTs change,or an exception is granted, it's not going to matter, since the data would breach the CTs... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it? Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL is better than ODbL. OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though. They're not artistic, but then neither are most other maps, or an encyclopedia article, or a newspaper article, or a police sketch, or a textbook. If you create a way representing the outline of a lake freehand from memory, it's hard to see how that's any less copyrightable than any other crude sketch of reality. Now most lake outlines are not done freehand from memory, but some might be, and I wouldn't feel too comfortable copying a way which might be copyrighted. And even if any are copyrightable the DbCL will handle that. That's what I'm wondering. It's not really clear. If the individual in individual contents means a database row, and a way is copyrightable, then the DbCL probably doesn't handle that, because a way is a creative arrangement made up of many database rows. And having a single database row as the individual in individual contents fits best with the spirit of ODbL (which, oddly enough, seems like it was never adapted for something like OSM even though it was (*)). In a database of white page addresses, or a database of flickr images, or a database of baseball stats, or NCBI’s Entrez Gene database, the definition of individual is obvious: a single white page entry, a single flickr image, a single baseball stat, a single gene name or pathway or protein product, which is probably going to correspond to a single row. It would be interesting trying to convert OSM into an unordered collection of facts and then converting it back into a structured database, in a clean room type operation. You'd probably wind up with a public domain database in any jurisdiction without database rights or sweat of the brow, and possibly also in any jurisdiction with database rights but without sweat of the brow, if you can argue that no single person or corporation was first to make the substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents required to obtain database rights. Notwithstanding the ODbL, of course, since writing down what you want to be the restrictions on a database does not amount to creating a law allowing you to put such restrictions on that database. (You can only bind by contract people who want to be bound by contract.) (*) I guess because it was adapted under the premise that OSM was an uncopyrightable collection of facts. If such a database were released with DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database, would the way be DbCL, or would it be ODbL? The way would be DbCL, and use of it would be covered by the ODbL or not like the rest of the database. That's not the way licenses work, though. If something is covered by two licenses, you can apply *either* license, you don't have to apply both. I guess that's one part I don't get. Because if you had to apply *both* licenses, it makes sense. But if you can apply *either* license, it doesn't. That said, I guess the answer is that the individual in individual contents is *meant* to mean any non-substantial extract (i.e. any extract on which the ODbL does not apply). Of course we then still have the question as to what is substantial, but at least that's a question for which there is likely to be some case law (as opposed to individual contents). It's a licencing stack, with each level (data, database, map tiles) covered by an appropriate licence. It's certainly strange that the middle of the stack would be the most restricted level, isn't it? Would it make a difference if the way were split into 1,000 different connected ways? I wouldn't have thought so. If you can re-assemble the copyrighted work then you have the copyrighted work (teleportation doesn't strip copyright, remember :-) ). Yes, but my question was over the application of the DbCL, not the application of copyright law. 1 way, perhaps, is individual content. 1,000 different connected ways isn't. If it were, then you could make substantial extracts and have them covered by DbCL. Individual ways in the drawing might be too simple to claim any rights over. But the DbCL means we don't have to worry about whether one way is likely to be covered by more rights than another. Actually, it's not really clear what the DbCL accomplishes. The point, as was explained to me in another thread, is to accomplish nothing - saying that the individual contents are DbCL is like saying that the individual words in a Wikipedia article are DbCL. Trivial, obvious, and unnecessary. Maybe that's all it does. Or maybe there's more to it. I don't know. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
Hi, 80n wrote: Ironically, for most people it is much easier to reverse engineer a .png than it would be to inport a dataset. It really depends on the situation. OSM has no concept of precision, so if I give you a list of 100 POIs on a 1024x2048 map of England, you simply wouldn't be able to place them in OSM because they would be hundreds of meters off. Firstly, the publisher can distribute it in any arbitrary format, removing IDs, modifying tags, etc. There is no incentive for the publisher to make it easy to use. It must still be the database from which he has produced his produced works. Granted, there is potential for obfuscation here, but if what it published is sufficiently interesting, the community is going to take note (oh look, this guy wants to make it hard for us to use the data... let's see what we can do). Thirdly, the publisher can simply refuse to agree to the contributor terms. Indeed; the publisher could even be completely oblivious of them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
On 09/04/2010 03:38 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it? Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL is better than ODbL. It would make contributions DbCL. The database aggregation of them would then be ODbL. OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though. They're not artistic, but then neither are most other maps, or an encyclopedia article, or a newspaper article, or a police sketch, or a textbook. Agreed, but in the example you give any copyright will be a product of the way representing an original artistic work. If you create a way representing the outline of a lake freehand from memory, it's hard to see how that's any less copyrightable than any other crude sketch of reality. Now most lake outlines are not done freehand from memory, but some might be, and I wouldn't feel too comfortable copying a way which might be copyrighted. That's what the DbCL is for, to ensure that all Ways are covered by precisely the same level of rights. And even if any are copyrightable the DbCL will handle that. That's what I'm wondering. It's not really clear. If the individual in individual contents means a database row, and a way is copyrightable, then the DbCL probably doesn't handle that, because a way is a creative arrangement made up of many database rows. If the CTs specified the levels of organization of the DB, e.g nodes, ways, meatadata, etc. would that be better? Or would saying any contribution suffice to cover any level of organization or abstraction? I think the latter should do it, but I understand that something more precise might be more convincing. And having a single database row as the individual in individual contents fits best with the spirit of ODbL (which, oddly enough, seems like it was never adapted for something like OSM even though it was (*)). In a database of white page addresses, or a database of flickr images, or a database of baseball stats, or NCBI’s Entrez Gene database, the definition of individual is obvious: a single white page entry, a single flickr image, a single baseball stat, a single gene name or pathway or protein product, which is probably going to correspond to a single row. I think that you are right that this is an important distinction, but I also think that the levels of structure in OSM are easily identified and descibed (nodes, ways, tags, etc.). The example you give of a row doesn't preclude an entity that consists of multiple rows being covered, indeed it makes it more covered as it contains many covered entities. It would be interesting trying to convert OSM into an unordered collection of facts and then converting it back into a structured database, in a clean room type operation. You'd probably wind up with Teleportation. ;-) a public domain database in any jurisdiction without database rights or sweat of the brow, and possibly also in any jurisdiction with database rights but without sweat of the brow, if you can argue that no single person or corporation was first to make the substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents required to obtain database rights. Notwithstanding the ODbL, of course, since writing down what you want to be the restrictions on a database does not amount to creating a law allowing you to put such restrictions on that database. (You can only bind by contract people who want to be bound by contract.) (*) I guess because it was adapted under the premise that OSM was an uncopyrightable collection of facts. I was recently reminded of this blog post that explains more generally why the DbCL (or FIL as it was called at the time) is needed: http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/2007/09/open-data-commons-contracts-and-factual-information/ If such a database were released with DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database, would the way be DbCL, or would it be ODbL? The way would be DbCL, and use of it would be covered by the ODbL or not like the rest of the database. That's not the way licenses work, though. If something is covered by two licenses, you can apply *either* license, you don't have to apply both. Your examples of various kinds of potentially copyrightable Ways show why the DbCL is a pre-requisite for OSM applying the ODbL. And the ODbL applies to the combined DbCL work collected by OSM. So both licences certainly apply. I guess that's one part I don't get. Because if you had to apply *both* licenses, it makes sense. But if you can apply *either* license, it doesn't. You have to apply both. Or, rather, the DbCL has to be applied so that OSM can then apply the ODbL to the results. I think. In any case, the DbCL is what allows BY-SA Produced Works to be created. That said, I guess the answer is that the individual in individual contents is *meant*
