Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: On Jul 10, 2014, at 07:54 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: That collective database is then generally used to produce works that are a produced work of the database of geocoding results as part of a collective database. I find the definition of geocoding in the proposed guideline a bit too large: Geocodes can be latitude/longitude pairs, full or partial addresses and or point of interest names.. Wikipedia is more limited: Geocoding is the process of finding associated geographic coordinates (often expressed as latitude and longitude) from other geographic data, such as street addresses, or ZIP codes (postal codes). Or in your definition of geocodes, only the coordinates are coming from OSM ? The risk of course is to create a full extract of all addresses/coordinates /POI's in OSM without the share-alike just because it's done through a geocoding process . How can we prevent this ? Pieren ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hello Alex, Alex Barth writes: I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding. Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline Thank you for working on these legal guidelines. A task the typical developer is not keen to work on. A while ago there was a discussion about the word geocode which seems to be a trademark in some jurisdictions. So opposed to the general term geocoding the word geocode might need to be used with care. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geocode_Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocoding The document itself describes nicely what use creates a produces work and what a derived database. Is it correct that from a legal point of view the ODbL already protects people from circumventing the share-alike by recreating the database from multiple produced works? I think it did. Still it might be worth mentioning in the guidelines that a large scale geocoding with the purpose to recreate a substantial part of the original database is no longer a produced work but a derived database and triggers ODbL share-alike. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Am 11.07.2014 14:40, schrieb Stephan Knauss: .. A while ago there was a discussion about the word geocode which seems to be a trademark in some jurisdictions. So opposed to the general term geocoding the word geocode might need to be used with care. Yes, correct, Alex can you please rephrase your proposal to avoid using the trademark. Thank you. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/11/2014 04:41 PM, Michal Palenik wrote: so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the share-alike clauses of the ODbL. is totally against section 4.6. This was something that we often discussed during the license change - what if somebody uses produced works to build a database that essentially is a substantial extract of OSM? We agreed (and I believe even had legal counsel on that issue), that no matter what license a produced work is under, making a database from repeatedly produced works *will* trigger ODbL. Else someone could essentially trace a non-ODbL OSM from tiles just because the tiles are produced works. I've added a paragraph to the proposal saying that we should make this explicit when talking about a geocoding guideline, to avoid misunderstandings. I'm not sure but I think some of the use cases quoted on the page are essentially such misunderstandings, unless of course they are not substantial. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Am 11/lug/2014 um 16:41 schrieb Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk: so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the share-alike clauses of the ODbL. is totally against section 4.6. +1 the data contained in produced works remains ruled by ODbL / share alike, this is stated in 4.3: 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. I agree it's hard to believe that geocoding would be considered creating a produced work and not a derivative database (maybe we have a different idea what one is doing when geocoding). the definition for produced work is “Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database - See more at: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf some use of geocoding might lead to producing a work like an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds but the data behind it remains ODbL and if you reuse those locations obtained by geocoding you'd have to do it under ODbL IMHO. Generally what I think about when reading geocoding: you'd take a list of addresses and use the database to localize (translate) them in geo coordinates. This seems to fit perfectly to the derivative db description: “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. - See more at: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
We're 100% in grey territory on geocoding and you can keep reading the ODbL in circles. “Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. - See more at: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.Fuel2Ngv.dpuf This definition does not preclude data to be a work as long as it has been created by a query, and the example in parenthesis are not exhaustive. What I'm looking for a is a clear interpretation by the community, supported OSMF, an interpretation that is a permissive reading of the ODbL on geocoding to unlock use cases. If there's share alike on data coming out of a geocoder you can't use it practically for geocoding. Many data set ups are just too complex. This is about unlocking geocoding on a broader level. More use cases = more incentives to improve data. I'd love to use OSM for geocoding again with more legal certainty at Mapbox and build further on a feedback loop back into OSM address and polygon data and I'd love that to be true for other users of OSM for geocoding too. We need to build up momentum for making OSM viable for geocoding. Clarifying that SA does not apply to results produced by a geocoder would do that. There's a problem with share alike and geocoding, let's make it go away. Alex On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 11/lug/2014 um 16:41 schrieb Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk: so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the share-alike clauses of the ODbL. is totally against section 4.6. +1 the data contained in produced works remains ruled by ODbL / share alike, this is stated in 4.3: 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. I agree it's hard to believe that geocoding would be considered creating a produced work and not a derivative database (maybe we have a different idea what one is doing when geocoding). the definition for produced work is “Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database - See more at: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf some use of geocoding might lead to producing a work like an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds but the data behind it remains ODbL and if you reuse those locations obtained by geocoding you'd have to do it under ODbL IMHO. Generally what I think about when reading geocoding: you'd take a list of addresses and use the database to localize (translate) them in geo coordinates. This seems to fit perfectly to the derivative db description: “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. - See more at: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: We're 100% in grey territory on geocoding and you can keep reading the ODbL in circles. Yes, and thanks a lot Alex for taking the lead in writing up these guidelines. I think a lot of value in this discussion will come from well defined examples. I added a couple more to the list, sourced from discussions we've been having at Telenav. -- Martijn van Exel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Jul 11, 2014, at 04:11 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: What I'm looking for a is a clear interpretation by the community, supported OSMF, an interpretation that is a permissive reading of the ODbL on geocoding to unlock use cases. Guidelines need to be accurate and supported by the ODbL and shouldn't be advanced to support a particular viewpoint and the process is not a way to weaken share-alike. I'm working my way through the examples. Consider a chain retailer's database of store locations with store names and addresses (street, house number, ZIP, state/province, country). The addresses are used to search corresponding latitude / longitude coordinates in OpenStreetMap. The coordinates are stored next to the store locations in the store database (forward Geocoding). OpenStreetMap.org's Nominatim based geocoder is used. The store locations are being exposed to the public on a store locator map using Bing maps. The geocoded store locations database remains fully proprietary to the chain retailer. The map carries a notice (c) OpenStreetMap contributors linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what forms a derivative database as part of a collective database. This derivative database is then used to create a produced work (the locator map). 4.4.c provides that this database of geocoding results is publicly used and is licensed under the ODbL. 4.6 requires offering the recipients of the produced work the derivative database itself or alterations file. In the specific case of this example, the alterations is trivial - you just say you were using unaltered OpenStreetMap data processed with Nominatim.___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
