Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? More to the point, does moving a single point by a hands breadth earn any rights to the editor? Here is the post office in Dubin, Ohio, imported from GNIS, then moved a few centimeters a few months later. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/357526575/history You mean where someone tweaked the position of some facts to make it look nicer? Making an artistic representation of fact already available. There are lots of situations where map data becomes artistic maps, you don't need to edit a map in illustrator to make it a work of art. -- /emj ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org To: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Cc: OSM Fork osm-f...@googlegroups.com; openstreetmap t...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org How long do I have to keep a copy of the adapted database in case someone takes me up on my offer? How much of the database do I need to keep? Is the offer valid to third parties? If person A makes a bunch of tiles from a database, and person B prints out a map from those tiles and gives the map to person C, who offers person C the copy of the adapted database? (Person B likely doesn't have a copy, but Person A would have to keep a ton of obsolete data indefinitely if his offer is valid to third parties.) It would depend on who was making the tiles and the print outs publicly available In the example I've given, both A and B have made the work publicly available, right? (As far as I can tell, private distribution to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities, such as from Person B to Person C, counts as making publicly available.) So if B prints out a map with directions to X (a bar, a meetup, a class, whatever), B has to include an offer [of one of those three choices]. It is the person who makes the produced work publicly available who has to comply with clause 4.6. So if A made the tiles publicly available he would have to comply, and if B printed out the map, and then made that map publicly available he would have to comply as well. Right, but what does it mean for A to comply? Does A have to offer [one of the three choices] only to the people who download the tiles, or does A have to offer [one of the three choices] to third parties who receive tiles indirectly? Does A have to offer [one of the three choices] to third parties who receive derivatives of those tiles indirectly? I have no idea! I think it would depend on whether the map printed out by B was considered a different produced work to the tiles made available by A. My gut feeling is that these are different produced works, and so A is only required to comply with one of the three options in respect of recipients of his produced work. A more complicated scenario might be: W produces a pdf map from data released under ODbL, W gives the pdf to X, X then distributes the pdf to Y Z. I could see that you could argue there is only one produced work, so W is required to offer to Y Z one of the alternatives. However it might still be possible to argue that the pdf produced by W was different to the pdfs produced by Y (after all Y produced 2 copies of one original, so clearly they cant both be the original), so W does not have to offer anything to Y Z. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the answer, and it may be that different jurisdictions take differing views. The former is certainly much easier for A to comply with than the latter. If you take a look at section 6 of the GPL, it's all spelled out a lot more clearly (all my questions are answered): The time limit is 3 years. The source code includes all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. Nothing more, nothing less. The offer must be valid for anyone who possesses the object code, including third parties. In the case of Person B, if the redistribution is done occasionally and noncommercially, then Person B can simply give a copy of the offer s/he received from Person A. If the redistribution is not occasional, or is commercial, then Person B has to give an offer of his/her own (or the source code itself). If that's what's intended by the ODbL, then that should be spelled out. And I think it's too much of a burden on Person A. Though given a shorter time period (say, 3 months), I guess it's reasonable. As it stands maybe I just shouldn't sweat it at all, as I can just give an offer which expires in 15 days and doesn't include third parties, and still be within the letter of the license (*). I'm afraid I dont understand that point at all. Regards David But I don't really want to do that. I'd rather try to figure out what's actually intended, and get that spelled out in the license. (*) According to some people on the fosm list, I can say that the offer expires December 31, 1999 and still be in compliance with the letter of the license. But I'm not so sure about that. ___
[OSM-legal-talk] Guidelines on interpretation of section 4.6 od ODbL
One of the main requirements of compliance with ODbL [1] is set out in Section 4.6.As yet there are no community guidelines on how OSM / OSMF interprets this section. There seem to be at least three areas where guidelines might be necessary: A) The term offer as used in the first paragraph of section 4.6 You must also offer to recipients . I would have thought this means that whenever you publicly use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database then you must instantly comply with the remainder of section 4.6. I may have misunderstood Frederick, but I infer from his comment so in effect if someone ever asks you.. [2] that he believes you only have to comply with the requirements of section 4.6 when asked. B) The first para of section 4.6 states You must also offer . in a machine readable form. What do we believe machine readable form means? For instance if I produce a printed map, is it OK to have printed instructions on how to produce the derivative database, on the basis that an OCR program can read the printed instructions, and it is thus machine readable? C) In section 4.6(b) what does the OR relate to. It could mean (i) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm); ie a file or the method (ii) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm)... ie a file which contains all the alterations OR a file which contains the method. I realise that some on this list may think I'm being picky, that I'm looking for an insignificant comma here or there, but the fact is that if we do not know how to interpret the ODbL then how will we answer when others ask us how to interpret it? Regards David [1] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006272.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] My recent post to OSM legal talk
Frederick I have just posted a series of questions to the OSM legal talk mailing list. In one point I cite an earlier point you made in an email to the list, and what I inferred from that email. I am in no way meaning to be critical of you, and it may be that I have inferred the wrong thing, alternatively we may have genuinely held differing opinions on the matter. Please be assured that I do not mean the posting as a criticism of you, but that I am merely trying to resolve what I see as am ambiguity. Regards David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guidelines on interpretation of section 4.6 od ODbL
Hi, David Groom wrote: A) The term offer as used in the first paragraph of section 4.6 You must also offer to recipients . I would have thought this means that whenever you publicly use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database then you must instantly comply with the remainder of section 4.6. I may have misunderstood Frederick, but I infer from his comment so in effect if someone ever asks you.. [2] that he believes you only have to comply with the requirements of section 4.6 when asked. Well you have to *comply* with the requirements always, not only when asked. But the requirement is to offer something, and in general legal or commercial terms, an offer will only lead to a transaction if taken up by someone. For example, you can offer free headphones with every purchase of a music CD but this does not mean that the headphones must be shrink-wrapped with the CD; the offer might indeed be something like simply send us your address and a proof of purchase and we'll send you the headphones. See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues under the first section (What sort of access to Derivative Databases is required?) where our lawyers say: This offer can point to a publicly accessible dump, diff or explicit instructions for recreating the database, or it can be an (email) address at which the author can be contacted. If someone takes up the offer - makes a request for the database - you must provide it to them within a reasonable time from receiving the request ... C) In section 4.6(b) what does the OR relate to. It could mean (i) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm); ie a file or the method (ii) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm)... ie a file which contains all the alterations OR a file which contains the method. I don't think it matters but I dont't think it makes sense to require that the method be described in a file. 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] Guidelines on interpretation of section 4.6 od ODbL
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guidelines on interpretation of section 4.6 od ODbL Hi, David Groom wrote: A) The term offer as used in the first paragraph of section 4.6 You must also offer to recipients . I would have thought this means that whenever you publicly use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database then you must instantly comply with the remainder of section 4.6. I may have misunderstood Frederick, but I infer from his comment so in effect if someone ever asks you.. [2] that he believes you only have to comply with the requirements of section 4.6 when asked. Well you have to *comply* with the requirements always, not only when asked. OK, I must have misunderstood what you were saying in the email I referred to earlier. Happy to have cleared that up. But the requirement is to offer something, and in general legal or commercial terms, an offer will only lead to a transaction if taken up by someone. For example, you can offer free headphones with every purchase of a music CD but this does not mean that the headphones must be shrink-wrapped with the CD; the offer might indeed be something like simply send us your address and a proof of purchase and we'll send you the headphones. See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues under the first section (What sort of access to Derivative Databases is required?) where our lawyers say: This offer can point to a publicly accessible dump, diff or explicit instructions for recreating the database, or it can be an (email) address at which the author can be contacted. If someone takes up the offer - makes a request for the database - you must provide it to them within a reasonable time from receiving the request ... C) In section 4.6(b) what does the OR relate to. It could mean (i) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm); ie a file or the method (ii) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm)... ie a file which contains all the alterations OR a file which contains the method. I don't think it matters but I dont't think it makes sense to require that the method be described in a file. It matters in the sense that either (i) or (ii) was implied, and we (OSM) need to understand what is meant. I'm happy to agree with you that we go along with interpretation (ii). Regards David 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases
On Jul 8, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: shifting to legal Can you at least get me off moderation for the duration of this discussion? Not really my call. Is CloudMade acting within the spirit of the license when they display maps containing proprietary data which can be bought for only $295/year? I don't see how they are, but apparently you think they are, right? I have no idea, I don't work there. If you don't know if this is within the spirit of the license, how can you expect me to? It's not whether I know, it's whether I care to know. There are 100's of issues and I can't go in to depth on every single one. If you think there is a problem raise it with the LWG or the DWG and they will look at it. I'm peripherally involved in both, but trust that they would look at it in detail. By the way, you do still have an ownership stake in the company, don't you? I can't make any public comments about that company. Next, you don't have to make the database available. You can make the db available, or the code. What code? I generally don't write all the code and then run the code. I add a few things here, run a little bit of SQL there, find some mistakes and run some more SQL, build some indexes, transfer some files to EC2, run some scripts on EC2 which are too memory intensive for my home machine, transfer some files back, etc. Making the code available doesn't work. Well that's what the license says, there's community norms around this stuff Yes, that's what the license says (*), and that's why I don't think I can comply with it. (*) Actually, it says A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. That additional Contents part might be a pain. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline I'm not talking about trivial transformations. I'm talking about downloading a few terabytes of LIDAR information, an OSM planet file, a bunch of shapefiles containing parcel shapes, and a bunch of data on parcel usage from the county property appraisers, and creating tiles from it. My understanding is all you need to ship is the ruby script which does all that. You don't need to ship all those things you mention if they too are available. I am not a lawyer, of course, but that's my understanding. It feels like you're just looking for a reason to say no. I'm sorry you think that. The reason I've posted this is that I'm looking for a reason to say yes. I'm glad to hear it. Let's make some progress. It's extremely simple: It's there because of the concern you have. Just publish or point to the code. Declaring it 'doesnt work' isn't helping or true. I still don't know what you mean by the code. There's no code. I run osm2pgsql, then I run some SQL, then I run ogr2ogr or whatever the heck the program is called. Then mapnik, or gdal, or whatever. I don't even remember what the process is. I make it up as I go along. Maybe that's not a great design process, but it's what I do. That sounds like a script to me. That's what I would mean by 'the code'. No license is going to be 100% perfect. Do you understand that? Yes, I understand that. :-) We would all have a lot more time for you, I think, if your attitude was ok the license is basically done, we've spent years on it, lets get it done and move on to version 2 rather than I'm going to hold out with increasingly outlandish scenarios until they delete my data. What outlandish scenarios have I offered? Mixing LIDAR and OSM and parcel data and making tiles, hosting those tiles, having someone come along and prints out the tiles and give them to a friend, is outlandish? It is because I keep offering solutions to it which you dismiss out of hand. It doesn't feel like you're trying to find a way to make the solution work, but rather find a way to make sure it doesn't work. Let's see how you feel about releasing merely the script which does all the things you mention. Personally I think your questions about how much time to keep the db for, for example, are reasonable. The problem is I could sit here for 10 minutes and come up with 10 reasonable looking questions like that about any license and we would never get anywhere. So, my preference is we just finish this phase and then work on implementing a bunch of fixes. But this stasis of concerns in perpetuity isn't going to work. If the LWG declared they would look at all those kinds of problems in a 'version 2' would you join us? What happens in the mean time? I think the problems are serious enough that they need to be solved before CC-BY-SA is dropped. Clearly you think that.
