Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
13 Dec 2019, 19:28 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org: > Hi Frederik, > > Here's why I disagree. The meaning of "derived" in a colloquial sense and the > definition of "Derivative Database" are not the same. > While colloquially, it may be fair to interpret "derived" as "made from" or > "could not have been made without", that is not the legal definition of > "Derivative Database". > > From ODbL: > “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. > > So a Derivative Database must include a "translation, adaptation, > arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a > Substantial part of the > Contents." In other words, it has to include in the new database at least a > substantial part of what was in the previous database. > Can you point me to legal definition of "substantial part"? I would expect that extracting boundary data for locations is some other database would count as "substantial part". But maybe this loophole actually works if "substantial" is defined to be unreasonably high. > The inference of "with pubs" would not be, in my mind, a "translation, > adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the > Database or of a Substantial part of the > Contents" because it is too minor of an inference. > It is certainly translation/adaptation, but such use may pass as not "substantial". I hope that "not substantial" would work for something like (1) not repeated extraction of location data for 100 points, but I would be happy to be pointed to an unbiased legal analysis of this term. (2) not repeated extraction of boundaries from OSM with no more than 100 nodes in total but it is hard to be to guess what can be considered as substantial. Probably depends on a lawyer and who pays them to write a legal decision. > With respect to Mateusz's more extreme example, this is also very > specifically covered in the Geocoding Guidelines: "> A collection of > Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data > if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the > original aggregation was accomplished." > > In other worse, if, as in Mateusz's hypothetical, you attempt to abuse the > system to reverse engineer a database that is equivalent to OSM, you make a > Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's > doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already > has on a different layer than the other subparts. > I thought that it was claimed that it is not translation/adaptation - but given that argument relies on "substantial" part then my example is not applicable.___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Nuno -
I do not see how Matthias's usecase qualifies as "AND you have *added to or
enhanced our data*" since the houses and flat and their prices are *not*
added to OSM houses or flats, but if this FAQ answer is misleading, we
should rewrite this FAQ answer to more accurate reflect ODbL.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:45 AM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> well
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#The_OpenStreetMap_Geodata_Licence
>
> Secondly, you *"Share Alike"*. If you do not make any changes to
> OpenStreetMap data, then you are unlikely to have a "Share Alike"
> obligation. But, if you *publicly distribute something that you have made*
> from our data, such as a *map or another database*, AND you have *added
> to or enhanced our data*, then we want you to make those additions
> publicly available. We obviously prefer it if you added the data straight
> back to our database, but you do not have to, *as long as the public can
> easily get a copy of what you have done.* If you do not publicly
> distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything.
>
>
> Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk escreveu:
>
> Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
> CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
> sharealike.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
> *"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
> art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
> Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
> a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
> in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
> *"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
> or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
> along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
> independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A
> work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative
> Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
> As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
> since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
> database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
> original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
> narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
> and the change in license did not change that.
>
> -Kathleen
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
>> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of
>> lies
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>>
>> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the
>> “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>>
>> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
>> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
>> have it written explicitly for data."*
>>
>> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>>
>> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
>> commercial interests?*
>>
>>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open
>> license.*
>>
>>
>>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
>>release it under a commercial license.*
>>
>>
>>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>>can be made and released by a different body.*
>>
>>
>>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
>>contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
>>> > “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.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi Christoph, I think that there is a premise to your list that I do not quite agree with. ODbL says: 3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, terminable (but only under Section 9) license to Use the Database for the duration of any applicable copyright and Database Rights. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, these rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or created in the future. So the rights granted are *all* database and copyright rights, subject to certain conditions that apply to Produced Works and Derivative Databases. There are rights that are completely not covered by ODbL are trademark and patent rights, which would be #6. But that also means there is a category #7 you have not listed, where the database and/or copyright rights *are* conveyed by ODbL and no limitations on the exercise of those rights is placed on the user. So as far as usecases like Matthias's which we are discussing, my opinion is that it is #5, but if it is not, it could be #7. But it could not be #6. On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:54 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 13 December 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > > I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under > > the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative > > Database" definition. > > My reading of the ODbL has always been that something is either > > 1) the original Database (or substantial parts of it) > 2) a Derivative Database > 3) a Collective Database > 4) a Produced Work > > or if something is neither of these it would be either > > 5) something that is not protected by law at all so free to use > independent of the license terms (like insubstantial extracts of data). > 6) something the ODbL does not grant any rights for and therefore cannot > be legally used by the user based on the ODbL. > > So my question would always be if someone considers certain things not > to be a Derivative Database which of the five other above cases applies > instead. > > I would kind of assume that for case (5) there are probably already some > court rulings available for to what extent EU database protection > applies to set operations of different databases since this is nothing > specific to spatial databases but also is relevant for many other types > of data. > > As i already wrote in > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083535.html > > existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like > ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that > are subject to share-alike. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > 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] use OSM data to select proprietary data
There are other writings about ODBL, but this one captures the issues fairly well: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons , a more in depth treatment can be found in ' Safe to be Open: Study on the protection of research data and recommendation for access and usage ': https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/sites/default/files/pdf/835.pdf Whether it is government, commercial interest or academic researchers, IMHO it is almost inevitable that 'mixing' will occur as information flows downstream and back upstream among federated sources. Until somebody develops and deploys some sort of blockchain provenance that can be attached to each DB element to keep track of things through pipelines of analysis/extract transformations, despite the best intentions of data consumers, it is impossible to be ODBL compliant except in the very simplest cases, like displaying the end map (with attribution) or using exclusively ODBL data. To some extent, extremely permissive licenses ( or 'license free' like the US Federal ) allow data to easily flow into ODBL, but ironically that benefit can not be reciprocated. While the https://opendatacommons.org/ seems to be stagnant since 2010 ( last 'News' post, and the Advisory Council page links mostly go to 404 ) , in contrast the Creative Commons organization has been continually evolving and adapting. For me, the point selection via ODBL polygons creates ODBL data. Michael Patrick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
On Friday 13 December 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under > the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative > Database" definition. My reading of the ODbL has always been that something is either 1) the original Database (or substantial parts of it) 2) a Derivative Database 3) a Collective Database 4) a Produced Work or if something is neither of these it would be either 5) something that is not protected by law at all so free to use independent of the license terms (like insubstantial extracts of data). 6) something the ODbL does not grant any rights for and therefore cannot be legally used by the user based on the ODbL. So my question would always be if someone considers certain things not to be a Derivative Database which of the five other above cases applies instead. I would kind of assume that for case (5) there are probably already some court rulings available for to what extent EU database protection applies to set operations of different databases since this is nothing specific to spatial databases but also is relevant for many other types of data. As i already wrote in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083535.html existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that are subject to share-alike. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
well
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#The_OpenStreetMap_Geodata_Licence
Secondly, you *"Share Alike"*. If you do not make any changes to
OpenStreetMap data, then you are unlikely to have a "Share Alike"
obligation. But, if you _publicly distribute something that you have
made_ from our data, such as a _map or another database_, AND you have
_added to or enhanced our data_, then we want you to make those
additions publicly available. We obviously prefer it if you added the
data straight back to our database, but you do not have to, _as long
as the public can easily get a copy of what you have done._ If you do
not publicly distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything.
Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk escreveu:
Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
sharealike.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"*means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"*means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective
whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of
this License.
As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative
derivatives, since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and
there is no US database protection law), a "derivative work" needs
quite a bit of the original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative
work" was always much narrower than what a colloquial understanding of
what "derived" might be, and the change in license did not change that.
-Kathleen
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's
not documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be
full of lies
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
/
/
/"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but
the “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." /
/
/
/" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our
current progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see
more below) but have it written explicitly for data."/
/
/
/"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." /
/
/
/"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
commercial interests?/
* /You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the
Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY
under a free and open license./
* /The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
release it under a commercial license./
* /If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the
existing data can be made and released by a different body./
* /If a change is made to another free and open license, it is
active contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."/
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote:
Hi,
On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> “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.
Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed
over this
definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some
assumptions I had
made. It would mean that, for example, a database that
contains a count
of all pubs in
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2019, at 19:56, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had > made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count > of all pubs in each municipality, -> adaptation > or a database that contains the > average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital, -> adaptation > or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, -> adaptation > (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble > OSM). is there a requirement in the ODbL that your adaptation or alteration has to be reversible? Cheers Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
sharealike.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or
encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along
with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent
works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as
defined below) for the purposes of this License.
As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
and the change in license did not change that.
-Kathleen
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of lies
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>
> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad
> guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>
> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
> have it written explicitly for data."*
>
> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>
> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
> commercial interests?*
>
>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.*
>
>
>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and release
>it under a commercial license.*
>
>
>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>can be made and released by a different body.*
>
>
>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
>contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
>> > “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.
>>
>> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this
>> definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
>>
>> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
>> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
>> of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
>> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,
>> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
>> because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of
>> anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
>> OSM).
>>
>> I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
>> ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
>> definition.
>>
>> 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
>>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of lies https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." * *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but have it written explicitly for data."* *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." * *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with commercial interests?* - *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.* - *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and release it under a commercial license.* - *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data can be made and released by a different body.* - *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."* On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, wrote: > Hi, > > On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > > “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. > > Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this > definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means". > > I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had > made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count > of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the > average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital, > or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL > because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of > anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble > OSM). > > I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the > ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database" > definition. > > 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 > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2019, at 19:32, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote: > > So as soon I'm selecting any data using OSM polygons, it gets transformed OSM > data? > They're not even touching on the same layer, since it's a different feature > type. if you modify your data based on OpenStreetMap data you are creating a derivative database. Cheers Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi, On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > “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. Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means". I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital, or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble OSM). I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database" definition. 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] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi Mateusz, >> No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. > It is true but misleading to mention here as this database contains > transformed OSM data. So if I don't merge the postcodes, it's fine? >> There is no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative >> Database. > This is blatantly untrue. There is OSM data there, only transformed. So as soon I'm selecting any data using OSM polygons, it gets transformed OSM data? They're not even touching on the same layer, since it's a different feature type. Regards, Matthias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi Frederik, Here's why I disagree. The meaning of "derived" in a colloquial sense and the definition of "Derivative Database" are not the same. While colloquially, it may be fair to interpret "derived" as "made from" or "could not have been made without", that is not the legal definition of "Derivative Database". >From ODbL: “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. So a Derivative Database must include a "translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents." In other words, it has to include in the new database at least a substantial part of what was in the previous database. The inference of "with pubs" would not be, in my mind, a "translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents" because it is too minor of an inference. I view Mattias's usecase as *using* OSM, not *making a Derivative Database from OSM*. I would also say that, looking back at the EU Database Directive, I do not see a case for breach of the restricted rights, particularly the right of "translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration." With respect to Mateusz's more extreme example, this is also very specifically covered in the Geocoding Guidelines: "A collection of Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the original aggregation was accomplished." In other worse, if, as in Mateusz's hypothetical, you attempt to abuse the system to reverse engineer a database that is equivalent to OSM, you make a Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already has on a different layer than the other subparts. -Kathleen On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:49 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Kathleen, > > On 12.12.19 23:40, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. > > Are you sure about this? Let me give an example: > > > If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially > > checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your > > list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the > > secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is > > no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database. > > Let us assume I have a list of all streets in Germany with their > geometry, from a non-OSM source. > > I want to divide these into two groups: streets that have at least one > pub, and streets that have no pub. > > Using OSM information about the location of pubs, I count the number of > pubs along each street, allowing me to make the desired separation. > > I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This > database does not include OSM data. > > In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the > result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you > will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new > database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have > been made without OSM. > > Do you disagree? > > 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 > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi Lars-Daniel, yeah, same here. I've read you tried to do similar work in the past. I think, you've merged postcodes with OSM data in a seperate column and didn't need to attribute it as share-alike. What did you end up with? Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2019 um 19:25 Uhr Von: "Lars-Daniel Weber" An: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data Please stop constructing such cases. This case clearly would have the intention of reproducing the OSM database. My intention is the trivial use of OpenStreetMap. A normal process in the GIS world. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Please stop constructing such cases. This case clearly would have the intention of reproducing the OSM database. My intention is the trivial use of OpenStreetMap. A normal process in the GIS world. Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2019 um 10:44 Uhr Von: "Mateusz Konieczny" An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data 13 Dec 2019, 09:48 by frede...@remote.org: I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This database does not include OSM data. In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have been made without OSM. Or more extreme. (1) I create database of points on the grid of 0.1 cm. (2) I create two list, first contains what according to OSM is on land, second contains what according to OSM data is water (3) I claim that both lists are not ODBL licenced. Are you going to claim that also this one is legally sound, and not Mapbox-tier "attribution hidden behind mystery meat "(i)" navigation fulfills ODBL attribution requirement" swindle? ___ 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] use OSM data to select proprietary data
13 Dec 2019, 09:48 by frede...@remote.org: > I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This > database does not include OSM data. > > In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the > result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you > will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new > database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have > been made without OSM. > Or more extreme. (1) I create database of points on the grid of 0.1 cm. (2) I create two list, first contains what according to OSM is on land, second contains what according to OSM data is water (3) I claim that both lists are not ODBL licenced. Are you going to claim that also this one is legally sound, and not Mapbox-tier "attribution hidden behind mystery meat "(i)" navigation fulfills ODBL attribution requirement" swindle? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
12 Dec 2019, 23:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org: > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. It is true but misleading to mention here as this database contains transformed OSM data. > Can I use OSM data and OpenStreetMap-derived maps to verify my own data without triggering share-alike? Mentioning this here is extremely misleading. > If something is both on your list and within the OSM boundary, then you say > 'yes, this goes on the secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. Note "you should be able to reasonably demonstrate that any such change was made either from your own physical observation or comes from a non-OpenStreetMap source accessed directly by you. I.e you can compare but not take!" Note "you should visit the street and check the name, then you are free to put that name in your data as it is your own observation." You are allowed to use this "secondary list" only and solely to pinpoint data that is likely to be wrong and requires verification. List itself is OSM derived and ODBL apply. > There is no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database. This is blatantly untrue. There is OSM data there, only transformed. 12 Dec 2019, 23:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org: > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. There > are two reasons. > > First, this example is analogous to the FAQ here: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_use_OSM_data_and_OpenStreetMap-derived_maps_to_verify_my_own_data_without_triggering_share-alike.3F > Can I use OSM data and OpenStreetMap-derived maps to verify my own data > without triggering share-alike? > > Yes, provided that you are only comparing and do not copy any OpenStreetMap > data. If you make any changes to your data after making the comparison, you > should be able to reasonably demonstrate that any such change was made either > from your own physical observation or comes from a non-OpenStreetMap source > accessed directly by you. I.e you can compare but not take! > > Example 1: You notice that a street is called one name on your map and > another in OpenStreetMap. You should visit the street and check the name, > then you are free to put that name in your data as it is your own observation. > Example 2: You notice that a boundary is different in your data and > OpenStreetMap. You should check back to original authoritative sources and > make any correction required. > > When someone does example #1 above, they compare OSM data and nonOSM data and > make a list of streets to check in the real world. Neither the nonOSM data > nor the list of streets needs to be licensed under ODbL. You may *compare* > freely. > If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially > checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your list > and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the secondary > list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is no OSM data in > the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database. > > Second, see the Geocoding Guidelines, which Martin also pointed out - > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline> > > Your example is akin to using OSM polygons for certain areas to geocode. You > already have the lat/long for your points (houses and flats), so what you are > getting from OSM is equivalent to the name of the area you are filtering > against (e.g., all these points are in neighborhood X). > The Geocoding Guidelines specifically state "if only names are provided in > Geocoding Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information > from OSM is not included in the Geocoding Results -- > a collection of such > results is not a substantial extract> ." > Thus, no ODbL obligations attach. > > -Kathleen > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Nuno Caldeira <> > nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> does contain derivate however,which means license applies >> >> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 19:46 , <>> matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>> > wrote: >> >>> > we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than >>> > is lock under their TOS. >>> >>> I want to apologize for my misunderstanding: my final product does not >>> contain any OpenStreetMap data. >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Kathleen, On 12.12.19 23:40, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. Are you sure about this? Let me give an example: > If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially > checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your > list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the > secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is > no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database. Let us assume I have a list of all streets in Germany with their geometry, from a non-OSM source. I want to divide these into two groups: streets that have at least one pub, and streets that have no pub. Using OSM information about the location of pubs, I count the number of pubs along each street, allowing me to make the desired separation. I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This database does not include OSM data. In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have been made without OSM. Do you disagree? 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
