[OSM-legal-talk] License question: odbl use case
Hi, with your help, I'll try to answer my own question posted (in full length) here: http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/14449/license-question-odbl-use-case I'd first like to mention that my customers, by now, are actively contributing to OSM and we absolutely want to stick to this spirit (not least, in our own interest)! However, I'd like to discuss the following legal issues/questions: 1) If I remain with the purchased geodata and CloudMade services, is it okay to simply stick to the attribution as before? I think the question can be answered with yes if proper notice/credits are provided because of the following reasons: The overlay (purchased geodata) is completely independent from the OSM data (see ODBL/Use Cases[1] 3.1 On-line map service using OSM data together with other data sources) and the CloudMade services can be assumed to fulfill all license requirements. A special case might state the calculation of the cost component for each job that is *derived* from the distance of the route. But I think this is no problem either as the transformation is trivial[2] and simply based on the (published) pricing table of the bike courier service. Is that correct? The second question is: 2) Would it be possible to extend the geocoding of addresses by openstreetmap services (eg. via Nominatim)? ... The example mainly falls into the section 4 Embedding OSM data into other products/applications (see ODBL/Use Cases[1]). The questions are: Is the derived (non substantial) data publicly used? (consequently 3.3 Using OSM mapping data together with confidential data for analysis purposes from the ODBL/Use Cases[1] would not come into account) I think yes: the distribution (in form of a web service) to the staff and customers of the courier service clearly states a public use! Is this correct? I think the more crucial point is the combination of the (copyright protected) purchased geodata and OSM data. This is clearly an improvement plugging gaps in a commercial product (see 5 Negative Use Cases from ODBL/Use Cases[1]). Of course the problem is, that I'm not allowed to publish the purchased geodata under the ODBL. The question is: Am I allowed to combine the purchased geodata with OSM data if I publish at least all modification made to the OSM-derived-data? In other words: Are the ODBL license requirements fulfilled, if I publish all changes to the data extracted from OSM for example by publishing: 1. the script that queries/filters data from OSM 2. the log (machine readable diff) of all changes to this derived data Does this fulfill the ODBL? Thank you very much in advance for your answers! Juergen. References: [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline other sources: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODBL http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, The currently accepted wisdom is that there exists a separate channel, apart from copyright, in which database right persists no matter what copyright license is used. This means that *if* somebody took lots and lots of CC-BY-SA-published OSM maps and reverse-engineered them into a new database, this database would then *automatically* fall under ODbL even if that was not mentioned in the CC-BY-SA product. This may sound hardly believeable to some but it is indeed not an uncommon concept. Imagine that I prepare an article about how Dyson's bagless vacuum cleaners work, and upload that to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA. Which is totally legal. Then you download the article and you go: Ha! This is CC-BY-SA so no further restrictions can be added. I will build this vacuum cleaner and flood the world with inexpensive and eco-friendly Dupont cleaners! - Sure enough, after a while Dyson will come knocking and sue you for infringement of their patent. As you said it, _their patent_. Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')? I think you need a better example to break the hardly believeable spell. Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hi, On 24.07.2012 18:01, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')? No, I mentioned the patent as an example of non-copyright IP that persists even through a CC-BY-SA chain where it is not mentioned at all. I think you need a better example No; the example is good enough for me, thank you ;) 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')? No, I mentioned the patent as an example of non-copyright IP that persists even through a CC-BY-SA chain where it is not mentioned at all. So, in my understanding you have just explained that an imaginery screwdriver can be used to hammer a nail, 'cause nails can be hammered, and giving a hammer as an example. Please do not feel offended, I just hoped for a good explanation of ODbL's 'viralness', escpecially when taking into consideration Produced Work chain, and tiles' CC-By-SA license with separate channel with any other rights inside. I understand patents work that way (ie. you can't recreate something), but making it into a license doesn't seem clear to me, and I don't think I've seen a lawyer stating somethink like this. It would be great to have it explained. Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
On 07/24/2012 08:19 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: Hello, ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate part of it. Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your responsibilities due to the link to the license from the attribution. There's no magic, the ODbL just follows its data using attribution. (Also, viral is a misnomer. Copyleft is inherited from a parent rather than caught from a neighbor.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate part of it. Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your responsibilities due to the link to the license from the attribution. There's no magic, the ODbL just follows its data using attribution. Yes, but I can do my Produced Work and it'll CC-By-SA (let's say I just do tiles from map of my area), attributing it. Someone else will use my work (use the tiles, enriching it with self-generated trails, added mountain tops etc), and put it on CC-By-SA (my CC-By-SA doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license? Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license? You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be attributed at each point and no break will occur. Ok, but how an attribution itself should overcome CC-By-SA's rights? I mean if the last-in-the-chain user sees OSM, and even looks at the ODbL license, how could he assume the ODbL license applies to him instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are stronger? CC-By-SA's points 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b doesn't seem to leave place for another copyrights inside, and from my point of view they don't have to as (in my NAL-opinion) ODbL doesn't try to impose on Produced Work any rights other than attribution (point 4.3: Notice for using output). If ODbL should apply to a database retraced from CC-By-SA tiles (let's rememeber they also contain someone else's work, like those trails and mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_ CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply... Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
On 07/24/2012 10:01 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: Hello, doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license? You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be attributed at each point and no break will occur. Ok, but how an attribution itself should overcome CC-By-SA's rights? It doesn't. It just advertises the database. I mean if the last-in-the-chain user sees OSM, and even looks at the ODbL license, how could he assume the ODbL license applies to him instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are stronger? Each license covers the material that it covers. If the user uses the database, or a substantial part of it, the attribution ensures that they know the requirements for using the database. CC-By-SA's points 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b doesn't seem to leave place for another copyrights inside, and from my point of view they don't have to as (in my NAL-opinion) ODbL doesn't try to impose on Produced Work any rights other than attribution (point 4.3: Notice for using output). Sure, this is about retaining the freedom to work with the data that has been used to produce the produced work. If ODbL should apply to a database retraced from CC-By-SA tiles (let's rememeber they also contain someone else's work, like those trails and mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_ CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply... BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0 notwithstanding). ODbL is still a comparatively new license and it is reasonable to have questions about it. I would recommend going to the people who wrote it and asking them directly, which you can do on the odc-dicuss list: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are stronger? Each license covers the material that it covers. mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_ CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply... BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0 notwithstanding). Saying so doesn't make any part of CC-By-SA licensed material uncovered by the license. It might not be designed for databases, but it doesn't mean a database is not an Adaptation. ODbL is still a comparatively new license and it is reasonable to have questions about it. I would recommend going to the people who wrote it and asking them directly, which you can do on the odc-dicuss list: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss One list a day ;) Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0 notwithstanding). It's important to note that this is only true where databases (like OSM) are not protected in some form by copyright. For significant parts of the world copyright and only copyright protects OSM. Also, it neglects the possibility of an implied license, but that would need to be tested in the courts. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
