[OSM-legal-talk] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion
Hi, on talk-us there was a mention of Carl Frantzen's recent three-part article with SOTM-US coverage, http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/openstreetmap-part-1-new-cartographers.php, and his mention of OSM moving away from his open-source roots. Apparently, this refers to some unfortunate statements at SOTM-US about share-alike being bad for business or something, and Frantzen mentions that a couple of businesses have set up an informal group to discuss which bits of our license they don't understand or want clarification on. As far as I know, nobody who knows anything about OSM seriously suggested that we move away from open source, it was just a phrase unfortunately reported. I am still rather surprised to hear about this as a side note of SOTM-US coverage instead of here on this list where license discussions should be at home. I would urge anyone who is unclear about anything with ODbL and/or who believes that any community norms we have must be refined, to discuss that here on this mailing list - whether it's for business or personal use. Looking through past discussions in the archives of minutes of our Licensing Working Group, it seems clear to me that OSM data under ODbL is unlikely to ever be available for no strings attached geocoding; we won't ask for your customer database just because you geocode with OSM, but you will have to adhere to some rules nonetheless. LWG has never actually made a decision on geocoding, and all mentions in their minutes carry big disclaimers (This is a summary of our discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of position). Under that disclaimer, the 20120515 minutes contain the following: To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often proprietary business information or personal information such as a patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does not exist. In the same notes there's a discussion of a like with like principle which means that Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is virally touched, but nothing else. The 20120522 meeting notes contain a link to a concept paper https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Ag81OlT1TtnhYwVE-bBtL018SNoU_V-anG4wLdwMT4c and explicitly say: To improve it, and test the rationality of the ideas expressed, we need and welcome real-world cases of geocoding and reverse-geocoding. So I guess anyone who wants to use OSM in a geocoding scenario should read that and submit their opinion, here or to LWG. Personally, I've gone on record as an advocate of a non-share-alike (PD) license for OSM but the project as a whole has decided to have a share-alike license and I accept that; I don't think that geocode as much as you want without sharing any data is possible with the ODbL data set. 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Is there a PD part in OSM?
I wonder if data you download now or did so in the past from OSM servers can be used as PD data. There are some users who have publicly declared that they consider their contributions to OSM to be in the public domain. For simplicity I'd like to restrict this question to users who have either made this declaration in their user description or have linked their wiki account from their user description (i.e. it is clear, which OSM username the declaration was made for and that the user was the owner of this account). Is it possible to download this data from OSM servers (or mirrors/extracts/elaborations from this) under a cc-by-sa or ODbL license and still consider it PD due to the dual licensing, the user has expressed he wishes his data to be under? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CT compatibility with attribution only licenses
Reading the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Make_sure_data_license_is_OK quote What we certainly cannot do is require end-users of our data/renderings to give credit to the particular data donor. With this in mind, our attribution may not be sufficient legally speaking and might actually be considered unsatisfactory by the original authors of the data. it seems to me, that also data which requires attribution only may not be imported into OSM as long as there is not an explicit statement from the original author/rights holder that crediting in the OSM system (e.g. changeset comments, wiki, source-tags on objects which might be later removed, credits in the description of a deducated import account, etc.) is sufficient and it is OK for him that the attribution to his particular data donation might be removed later by following users of the data? Or what is the general interpretation of the meaning of CT/ODbL regarding attribution only licenses? I am refering for instance to the Italian Open Data License, which explicitly states that it is compatible with cc-by-sa 3.0 and ODbL: http://www.formez.it/iodl/ but requires to (it:indicare la fonte delle Informazioni e il nome del Licenziante, includendo, se possibile, una copia di questa licenza o un collegamento (link) ad essa;) ~cite the source of the information and the name of the licensor, including if possible a copy of this license or a link to it (informal translation). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion
Hi It's a pretty hilarious, sensationalizing series of posts. I do give him credit for getting deep into some of the issues and discussions of OSM, more than any other reporter I've seen. But I wouldn't take his zingers any more seriously than good lines at the US pres debates. As for geocoding and ODbL, there is concern over how to interpret ODbL here, and I'm sure some use cases will come up for discussion soon. One option I've thought viable would be sharing of the selected strings used to geocode data, along with the lat/lng obtained from OSM and/or user input. Btw, I was at SOTM-US, but didn't talk to Carl or take part in the ODbL-Geocoding BoF. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:58 AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion Hi, on talk-us there was a mention of Carl Frantzen's recent three-part article with SOTM-US coverage, http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/openstreetmap-part-1-new-cartographers.php, and his mention of OSM moving away from his open-source roots. Apparently, this refers to some unfortunate statements at SOTM-US about share-alike being bad for business or something, and Frantzen mentions that a couple of businesses have set up an informal group to discuss which bits of our license they don't understand or want clarification on. As far as I know, nobody who knows anything about OSM seriously suggested that we move away from open source, it was just a phrase unfortunately reported. I am still rather surprised to hear about this as a side note of SOTM-US coverage instead of here on this list where license discussions should be at home. I would urge anyone who is unclear about anything with ODbL and/or who believes that any community norms we have must be refined, to discuss that here on this mailing list - whether it's for business or personal use. Looking through past discussions in the archives of minutes of our Licensing Working Group, it seems clear to me that OSM data under ODbL is unlikely to ever be available for no strings attached geocoding; we won't ask for your customer database just because you geocode with OSM, but you will have to adhere to some rules nonetheless. LWG has never actually made a decision on geocoding, and all mentions in their minutes carry big disclaimers (This is a summary of our discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of position). Under that disclaimer, the 20120515 minutes contain the following: To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often proprietary business information or personal information such as a patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does not exist. In the same notes there's a discussion of a like with like principle which means that Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is virally touched, but nothing else. The 20120522 meeting notes contain a link to a concept paper https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Ag81OlT1TtnhYwVE-bBtL018SNoU_V-anG4wLdwMT4c and explicitly say: To improve it, and test the rationality of the ideas expressed, we need and welcome real-world cases of geocoding and reverse-geocoding. So I guess anyone who wants to use OSM in a geocoding scenario should read that and submit their opinion, here or to LWG. Personally, I've gone on record as an advocate of a non-share-alike (PD) license for OSM but the project as a whole has decided to have a share-alike license and I accept that; I don't think that geocode as much as you want without sharing any data is possible with the ODbL data set. 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] Is there a PD part in OSM?
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: I wonder if data you download now or did so in the past from OSM servers can be used as PD data. There are some users who have publicly declared that they consider their contributions to OSM to be in the public domain. For simplicity I'd like to restrict this question to users who have either made this declaration in their user description or have linked their wiki account from their user description (i.e. it is clear, which OSM username the declaration was made for and that the user was the owner of this account). Is it possible to download this data from OSM servers (or mirrors/extracts/elaborations from this) under a cc-by-sa or ODbL license and still consider it PD due to the dual licensing, the user has expressed he wishes his data to be under? There are no such data in OSM. PD declaration in the user page is just a manifest but it does not have any real meaning. Discussion about PD was directed into a special legal-general mailing list in October, 2008. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-general Best place to read about OSM and PD is still the legal-talk archives from the the same time, October 2008 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-October/thread.html -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is there a PD part in OSM?
Hi, On 21.10.2012 11:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Is it possible to download this data from OSM servers (or mirrors/extracts/elaborations from this) under a cc-by-sa or ODbL license and still consider it PD due to the dual licensing, the user has expressed he wishes his data to be under? A very short answer since elaborations on details can indeed be found in the archives, as Jukka wrote. 1. The legal effect of the PD declaration is unclear due to several reasons, one of them being that some users probably didn't really know what the checkbox meant, another being that there's no PD in some countries. 2. Even if we assume that the legal effect was binding, OSMF can choose to exercise database rights (which apply to the collection of things, even if the individual things are free) and assert that the whole collection and any substial extract is under ODbL and ODbL only. I would assume that since OSMF have not made a statement to the contrary, this is the status quo. 3. This leads to the interesting side effect that someone downloading his own data from OSM would be bound by ODbL for his own data as well. I find that a little strange and I guess there will be some loophole to make it not so ;) 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
